licebmi__at

I feel that this is more an issue about bad managment. When your managers are bad to create good communication between teams, sharing the same workspace is a pretty neat workaround that can save a project.

When I was a physics undergrad, I loved discussing (both offline and online) about the arbitrary nature of math and also the logical holes in the scientific method.

Despite providing reputable sources to my claims, I got called out for being anti-scientific, a creationist maybe.

I felt disheartened not for the lack of knowledge, but because the refusal from some "skeptics" to challenge their beliefs.

Nowdays I still love discussing about this stuff but only for amusement and with a somewhat trollish approach.

Well, that's not entirely true (while I do admit the nurture bunch are loud).

Some of us are skeptical on EP's results more than EP itself. I believe that is undeniable that some (or most) behavior is imprinted within our genes, animal domestication being a pretty solid proof.

That doesn't invalidate the fact that most of the time, when I read some study on the field feels more like conjectures made fit in the researcher's beliefs; some flawed logic where the consequent is used to prove the antecedent, and some dubious experiment most of the time made in other species (biological studies on other species don't translate pretty well on humans, and yet, we try the same with a less measurable parameter?) It's even worse if you happen to read some generalist media approach to EP, where EP is used to push down the editor's narrative.

In short, some of us are careful on EP not because it's not a promising field, but because these days is being used to prove everything and it's opposite.