Hi Mohan

I'll reply to both of your posts together.

In the first you say: “By 'candidate explanation', I mean one that would satisfy the principles of the science within which it is couched.”

I’m not sure what you mean by “within which it is couched”, but science requires evidence, does it not? In this case there is none – or next to none.

You also write: “By the way, nobody said that one had to know anybody's beliefs. Do you think historical explanation is impossible because we can't know what Napoleon believed or desired? “

We do in fact know a lot about what Napoleon believed and desired, and that has contributed enormously to the writing of history about the Napoleonic period. But it is not just Napoleon himself. It’s the society and culture generally. What kind of history of the Napoleonic period could one write if (per impossible) one knew nothing about what the people of the times believed or desired?  

In the case of the Palaeolithic period – which is more relevant to the issue we are discussing – one of the reasons why a history of that vast stretch of time is non-existent (and why it is called “pre-historic”) is that we have not the slightest idea what Palaeolithic man believed or desired. Not the foggiest. And we never will.  Which does not of course prevent people like Dutton and Dissanayake making all kinds of confident claims on the subject.

You write: “I wouldn't be going to an aesthetics forum for help with the arguments about evolution”. Perhaps in fact you should. Might be a bracing experience to come in contact with people who spend their time thinking about art. I wouldn’t be at all surprised, by the way, if you even found some who think that evolutionary arguments are feasible. Dutton is a prominent philosopher of art...

As for Gombrich, well, don’t get me started. Gombrich’s account of art is superficial and confused – as well as conservative and out of date. Frankly, I don’t think anyone takes him very seriously these days, even in his home discipline of the history of art. His books still sell, of course, because he had a flair for a kind of slick journalistic prose, but if you’re looking for penetrating, relevant, coherent thinking about art, I would strongly advise looking elsewhere.

DA