Something I know Nothing About

I was just reading Harmon R. HolcombIII's review of Buller's book on Evolutionary Psychology. (In Evolutionary Psychology 3: < http://www.human-nature.com/ep/reviews/ep03392401.html> I'm way over my head here. I recognize that these philosophers of science not only know more about these matters than I do, but I'm not likely to be doing a lot of reading on this stuff any time soon...
Having said that, I think I've fallen into the category of ordinary or lay reader who has been tempted to read a bit of Ev Psych--more or less uncritically. And, for that reason I was looking forward to Buller's book. I have not yet decided whether to buy it....Originally I thought I should since I know that I have picked up stuff from Evolutionary Psychologists--more or less uncritically. (And also because many of them have easily accessible stuff on the web.)

My remark here is a bit to the side of all that excessive wind-up/frame setting.

Why are people so interested? Because it's about sex? Or because it's about science and sex? Because sex and love are a mystery and we all need help? Is it a way of talking about sex acceptable to a Puritan?--if you make science of it? . Probably that's bullshit--the sort of thing you expect in a blog. An alternative thought is that we need any resource we can find to help us understand this stuff....

In saying all of that, I keep recalling Simon Blackburn's review of Pinker's Blank Slate.... < ">http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/reviews/Pinker.htm> Blackburn admitted to being concerned (I've forgotten his exact word) by the popularity of Evolutionary Psychology... His concern seemed to me misguided. If the research program exists together with lively criticism, then there's nothing to be worried about. Unless it's just the thought that fewer people will be reading Hume (sorry Simon)..... I myself wish I had more time for reading Hume, but my current means of earning a living allows little time for thought and reflection.