Usually I try to avoid "I know what I'm talking about" comments – you should just let your arguments & ideas do the talking! – but in this case it seems worth mentioning.
I have a degree in Pure Mathematics. This is not math-phobia.
Formalism: roughly, any expression of an idea in exact, precise terms. Usually means either math or computer models.
So formalism is obviously a Good Thing. It's a super important tool for science.
All scientific ideas leave some matters unaddressed. Are those unaddressed matters problems (for other disciplines to address?) or mysteries?
Here's a relevant passage from @dansperber's 'Explaining Culture'.
Bias, learning, culture,... the examples are many. Often (not always) these words hide mysteries.
I do however complain that naturalism is too often treated as secondary to formalism. This is a mistake.
formal / informal
naturalised / unnaturalised
Others are highly naturalised but informal. Classic example: Darwin's presentation of the theory of natural selection.
Seems to me that scientists – and indeed the institution of science itself – too quickly & too often privilege formalism over naturalism. Math is sexy.
The hidden implication is that unformalised work is unrigorous. And no doubt that is true sometimes. But definitely not always.
Both are highly naturalistic, and indeed that's exactly why I've been drawn to them and work on them. Deep engagement with the relevant findings and thinking from neighbouring areas.
** i.e. cognitive pragmatics for RT; cultural evolution for CAT
I am, and I think that for those of us who want to do basic science about what makes us human, this is the right choice.
That's all prioritising a method over a goal.
I'll always go with naturalised & informal over formal & unnaturalised. What about you?