The social sciences face a significant challenge: they often lack scientific rigor. Much of what is taught in these fields relies on assertions that have been accepted simply because they were once stated by influential figures. This reliance on authority has led to substantial advancements in the "hard" sciences—such as physics, mathematics, and biology—while the social sciences have made comparatively little headway.

In the "hard" sciences, assertions are insufficient; what truly counts is evidence. Proof can be established through various methods, typically involving existing theories that are tested against repeated observations. A classic example is the unexpected retrograde motion of Mercury, which contradicted Newtonian predictions, prompting the need for a new theoretical framework. Albert Einstein introduced the concept of spacetime, leading to groundbreaking predictions and empirical validations, such as Eddington's 1919 observations that confirmed Einstein's field equations, ultimately replacing Newtonian mechanics.

However, not all scientific endeavors are so straightforward. For instance, while several researchers contributed to the theoretical understanding of the Higgs Boson, it took nearly sixty years to develop the technology required to confirm its existence at predicted energy levels. Some predictions remain challenging to test, often languishing in a realm of mathematical validity without empirical support.

Despite these challenges, the principle of testing hypotheses against real-world data remains central to science, a principle that has often been absent in the social sciences.

Enter _Evolutionary Psychology_ (EP). This field has been frequently misrepresented in popular media, making a clear understanding of its potential essential.

EP starts from the logical premise that human brains are not inherently special; like other body parts, they have evolved under selection pressures. Traits that offered survival advantages were preserved, while those that were maladaptive were eliminated from the gene pool.

The publication of The Adapted Mind by Cosmides and Tooby in 1980 marked a pivotal moment, offering new insights into human behavior. Unfortunately, funding for EP research has often been elusive, favoring less contentious topics. As a result, EP remains somewhat marginalized in academic circles, often focusing on micro-topics. Nonetheless, the most significant advancements in any field often emerge from perspectives beyond academia.

To illustrate how EP differs from earlier theories, we can contrast it with Freud's theories of the mind. Freud's extensive writings centered on human sexuality but largely ignored evolutionary context. He failed to consider how his theories aligned with the challenges faced by humans throughout their evolutionary history. Instead, he constructed a complex framework that mirrored Christian mythology, resulting in a belief system lacking in unique predictions that could be empirically tested.

True scientific theories generate testable predictions, which is crucial for validating or refuting them. This empirical approach has led to technological advancements like smartphones and GPS—outcomes of rigorous testing and validation.

EP stands out as the first branch of psychology that aligns with empirical testing standards. While sociological frameworks may gather circumstantial evidence, EP can formulate unique predictions and facilitate proof testing.

Let’s consider a simple example. A popular country and western song advises women to "stand by your man," a strategy that would likely have been disadvantageous throughout much of human history. Consider two families, A and B, each with a female, male, and child. At the outset, all factors—age, health, and hunting-gathering skills—are equal. However, if both males return injured from a hunt, the consequences differ. Family A's female might eventually abandon her injured mate to find a viable partner, while Family B's female remains loyal to her injured mate, leading to her family's demise. This scenario suggests a hardwired behavioral response for women to abandon non-viable mates, a prediction not typically made by standard psychology.

To test this prediction, we can assess whether women are wired to evaluate mate viability. A simple experiment involves observing how often a female partner touches a specific area of her male partner's body before and after he claims to have pain there. Empirical results may show an increase in touching after the injury claim, indicating an instinctual assessment of mate viability.

Critics may dismiss such experiments as sexist or inconclusive, yet scientific value lies in its ability to predict and explain real-world phenomena, regardless of personal beliefs.

This foundational example can be expanded upon by considering variables such as age and mate attractiveness, allowing for further testable predictions. EP's strength lies in its ability to rigorously explore fundamental human behaviors through empirical data, moving beyond speculative theories.

Despite its potential, EP faces criticism. Some equate describing certain behaviors with endorsing them, akin to arguing against weather warnings for fear of promoting natural disasters. Others struggle with the idea that many behaviors are hardwired and beyond conscious control. Nevertheless, reality remains unaffected by personal beliefs; rejecting facts doesn't alter their truth.

Moreover, some view EP's findings as legitimizing undesirable traits, similar to concerns that studying genetics might endorse violence. History has shown that new forms of knowledge often encounter resistance, particularly when they challenge cherished beliefs about human nature. Recognizing our inherent limitations may not be glamorous, but it is a more accurate representation of humanity and can empower us to navigate our behavior effectively.

In summary, EP offers a promising framework for understanding human behavior through a scientific lens, providing the tools to test and validate theories that were previously unapproachable in the social sciences.