There are a lot of fields of study that we accept despite these flaws. Economics and social sciences are prime examples. But for some reason it’s evolutionary psychology that revs people up so much.

The idea is even not that controversial: “The need to survive might have affected human psychology - especially the learned part”.

> There are a lot of fields of study that we accept despite these flaws. Economics and social sciences are prime examples.

Who's we?

I'm sick and tired of people saying this. It sounds like this: "This is a map of Middle Earth, not Stalingrad." "But at least we have a map! What's your alternative, you complainer?" "But it's not a map of a real place!" "We'll use this map - flawed as it is - to plan our invasion of Stalingrad."

I want my science rigorous. Or else it isn't science.

The collective “we”, which is largely independent of your individual opinion.

The problem is not that we have a faulty map. It’s that you pretend it’s irreversibly faulty.

We’ve successfully navigated quite a bit of trouble and chances are that we’ll be able to do so in the future.

What you are suggesting sounds a lot like: let’s do nothing.

Economics would be parallel to psychology, not evolutionary psychology. I believe that descriptive psychology is a science.

E.g. eventually they will be able to determine the result of the Milgram experiment, and it will become a fact, a building block in our view of the world, and it will affect our decisions mostly positively. They just need to make enough experiments.

Evolutionary psychology is descriptive psychology with the assumption that closely related evolutionary paths can be used for comparative study.

Maybe you can come up with a particularly stringent conceptualization of what is or isn’t science, and maybe some fields of inquiry won’t meet that bar (like cosmology?), but that doesn’t make them “dumb”. Even without testability you can still reason about the likelihood of things.