Methodology issue of Evolutionary Psychology

From my last discussion of the theoretical issues of evolution as a hypothesis to be tested, it follows that any disciple derivative from it would suffer from the same issue. This is an example I remembered from the heyday of my Psychology class in University: It is about the idea of biological preparedness for learning in Behaviorism, the central tenet is that Phobic is a sort of evolutionary ‘leftover’. Therefore it is easy to learned and difficult to unlearn. Which to me it seems to implied part of causation chain is in the genes.
How to prove this assertion? That is the part make this example so memorable. The method is to ask ‘experts’ to judge how each phobic is related to the level of danger posed to human five thousand years ago. Thus, follow this strange logic, no wonder human is so easily to acquire fear of height, fear of snake, fear of spider! Because some of our ancestor has suffer from them therefore develop an inborn preparedness to learn to fear them. It is adaptive(during that time) to born with tendency for the fear of them since they will increase your chance of survival.
Does it sound like circular logic to you? My feeling at the time is: That is certainly a circular logic. How can anyone setup an experiment to test this ‘hypothesis’? Can anyone setup a null hypothesis to test against it? How can anyone to have an experiment to falsify this hypothesis? If this hypothesis is right, you certainly can’t find another human that doesn’t have this inborn tendency.(If this hypothesis is wrong, how can you distinguish it from other?) What can five or tend ‘expert’ judge give us useful information on the past? At least, we require anthropologist to test if the native who live in a native environment who are also born with these tendencies. Otherwise, how can we know for sure? Evolution is a retrospective science, thus by nature, it is difficult to assure of its internal validity, so do Evolutionary Psychology.

Of the curosity in Classical Behaviorism

Classical Behaviorism started by Ivan Pavlov which love to explain any behavior of human being via the construct of Reflex. Thus, his dog will saliva when hunger, and it is paired with a fixed other stimulate such as a ring, the brain would associate the ring with saliva. Thus behavior is all about connecting stimulate and reaction together neurologically. Reflex are, in a sense, similar to classical conditioning since they are both association of stimulate and reaction. The only difference is Reflex are pre-programmed by genes which Behaviorist doesn’t need to explain it at all. It appears in my mind that Behaviorist think they can easily explain any human behavior by fitting into the Stimulus-Reaction framework. However, this framework of explaining human behavior hits a ceiling when it encounter the phenomena of curiosity. Since curiosity is about a novel stimulus, and novel stimulus is what the organism never encounter before. How could natural endowed us with a ‘Curiosity Reflex’ that only react to stimulus which never exists in the behavioral repository? How to program a Reflex when the instruction is ‘For anything you never have encountered before’ since it require potentially unlimited number of unexposed stimulus? Or in his mind, the brain are born equipped with idea of negation, thus we can NOT only condition a behavior with existing stimulus and we can also condition an organism the NEGATION of existing stimulus. How is it possible if the organism is NOT able to do some rudimentary level of abstraction and computation in his/her mental space? Thus the idea of Curiosity Reflex demand the existence of mental space.