Idiocy of the day: “In philosophy….” Me: We’re talking about truth. Science differs from philosophy because its observable. Law differs from science because we test for whether an argument is testifiable and criminal. You’re engaging in fraud. Not philosophy.”
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-19 05:18:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1384013606556114953
Other fraud of the day. When referring to the overwhelming evidence of data providing consensus in a field after decades of research “I disagree, show me that citation”. My repsonse “If you knew enough to disagree you would put forward an argument. You can’t. Do your homework.”
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-19 04:31:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1384001640231886859
Dosen’t matter. It’s effectively counter-feminism.
I’m simply interested in examples of psychological differences that are not obvious in the scientific literature, but will resonate with audiences.
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-18 18:52:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383855879074635788
Reply addressees: @TomWils11686864 @WorMartiN @LukeWeinhagen
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383855223131701249
The New York Times Loves Psuedoscientists
Especially Gould and Krugman. Gould has been judged by history. Krugman is in the process of it.
I could have made a career out of debunking krugman. and thought about it. But dance with feces often enough and you begin to smell like it.
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-18 12:38:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383761758687350787
Not an argument. Science is painful. I’m sure you would have joined the throng criticizing socrates, aristotle, galileo and darwin. I don’t expect anything different. Science says your a bot. A domesticated animal trained to speak. The illusion of agency. It’s OK. It’s Evolution.
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-17 16:50:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383462990364565509
Reply addressees: @CruzControl72
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383461888072159232
Sorry, we know how the brain works now. The mystery is gone. It’s tediously simple. There is no observer just a hierarchy of memory. We know how the competition for correspondence is produced, and where and how stimulation is organized into experiences. https://t.co/XSOl1usaXQ
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-17 05:53:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383297578335277065
Reply addressees: @cometaj2 @MattPirkowski
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383194693421264898
😉 Define ethics, and then produce a construtive proof that falsifies all alternatives.
I can. Can you? lol
Any idiot can produce sophistry.
Only a rare few of us produce science. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-17 05:36:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383293263281496064
Reply addressees: @CruzControl72 @ariana_erbon @NoahRevoy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383209342430818304
I can’t find any evidence of anything other than that they do in fact inject you with viral material that does (at least in the 2nd dose) seem to produce common problems (esp my mother). The problem is we have lost faith in academy, media, and state and it’s unrecoverable.
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-16 23:11:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383196288246775808
Reply addressees: @JarvisWitts
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383195597616812037
That’s philosophcial sophistry. It rests on logical consistency, operational consistency, empirical evidence, and consistet and coherent with all sciences.
One would need to provide a more parsimonious theory that was of greater consistency and correspondence.
You cant. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-16 23:09:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383195879608352770
Reply addressees: @cometaj2 @MattPirkowski
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383195119499677701
I dont make positive assumptions. I eliminate falsehoods through exhaustive falsification (science). I’m just stating how these things work in scientific terms. If it’s no use to you then it isn’t. Secular theology is a thing for some people. It’s cool as a religious substitute.
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-16 22:52:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383191591196721155
Reply addressees: @cometaj2 @MattPirkowski
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383191082662461443