Is evolutionary psychology a science?

Ofcourse, but it's just a very unexplored field, filled with observational extrapolatory stuff. It'll surely become something standard sooner or later.

>>8638174
Neither evolution nor psychology are sciences, why would some bastardized hybrid be?

>>8638252
>scientific applications of biology and neurology arent sciences

>>8638174
Give an example of a theory in evolutionary psychology. Not a hypothesis or a vague and general idea, but an actual formalized theory. That's how you tell whether something is science.

>>8638379
philosophy is a science despite having no theories

>>8638304
Biology and neurology aren't sciences either.

>>8638416
Why?

>>8638174
>Is evolutionary psychology a science?

That's a question for evolutionary philosophers.

>>8638416
>scientific aplications of physics arent science

>>8638492
>scientific aplications of maths aren't science

>>8638496
>conceptualization of the human mind isn't science

>>8638390
Which would be consistent with the fact that philosophy is not science.

That said, parts of philosophy do overlap with science, in which case there actually are theories. Quine for example claimed that philosophy is on a continuum with science.

>>8638541
correct

>>8638541
Not necessarily.

>>8638666
>Which would be consistent with the fact that philosophy is not science.
Science is a subset of philosophy.

>>8639793
Let science be a subset of the set philosophy.
Not all philosophy is science, thus there are other sets. Let them be called {S&*}, the family of subsets ampersand prime.

There is no branch of science that can particularly be called philosophy, therefore let no member of the set philosophy also be a member of the subset science.

Anecdotally, science exists, henceforth the subset of science is non-empty.

Invoking the axiom of choice, the parmesian product of {S&*} and science must be non-empty. However, it isn't.

The axiom of choice is thus disproven.
WWWWWW