When looking at David Barash’s article Sexism: Strategies of Reproduction, or When is Beeswax Like a Ferrari? it is clear to see that Evolutionary Psychology is most definitely a pseudoscience. According to the article, many different points of information about reproduction are stated, but if we were to compare this to the Paul-Elder model of Critical thinking when applying this to legitimate science, we can see that it is pretty far from being distinguished as an actual science. For example, in relation to the Paul-Elder model’s Elements of Thought, what’s being assessed should “draw inferences and conclusions... interpretations or conclusions you arrive at using the data, information.” (Saindon, Sept 10). In terms of the way Barash wrote his article on Evolutionary Psychology, there is not much…show more content… This being said, how can one really know that there could be the possibility of different results that he is withholding? This could be a form of confirmation bias in terms of his research and thus, leaving out information that could be crucial to the end result in his creation of the article or in proving that Evolutionary Psychology could be categorized as a science. In relation to this, although there are examples listed within the text where he is trying to prove why certain things happen in the evolution of humans or animals, he does not consider the alternatives either. The Paul-Elder model of Critical thinking also states that “All thinking involves consideration of possible alternatives, real and possible in all preceding categories. Alternatives use other items not considered in the existing categories...alternate points of view, data...” (Saindon). Throughout the piece written by Barash, he does not consider the alternatives of some of the cases that he presents
