That's what science is: Coming up with bullshit (or "theories" as scientists call them) and then finding evidence for and against.
As for scientists "spouting off", I think you sound pretty paternalistic saying that lay audiences need to be protected from scientific theories, no matter if they are unproven.
As for whether the article argues "we'll never know", the gist of the article is that there is no way of answering these questions without having a time machine- That suggests they preclude the possibility of answering these questions. Then it knocks scientists who at least attempt to come up with theories, given the limited data, which is exactly what scientists _should_ try to do.
(That being said, evo psych folks clearly have been sloppy in popular expositions just how shaky the foundations of the discipline actually are.)
As for scientists "spouting off", I think you sound pretty paternalistic saying that lay audiences need to be protected from scientific theories, no matter if they are unproven.
As for whether the article argues "we'll never know", the gist of the article is that there is no way of answering these questions without having a time machine- That suggests they preclude the possibility of answering these questions. Then it knocks scientists who at least attempt to come up with theories, given the limited data, which is exactly what scientists _should_ try to do.
(That being said, evo psych folks clearly have been sloppy in popular expositions just how shaky the foundations of the discipline actually are.)