I unapologetically view people who take a hard stance on something they have not even bothered to research as uniquely bad at thinking, let alone intellectually arrogant. twitter.com/Aella_Girl/sta
This Tweet is unavailable.
4
10
79
Conversation
Replying to
i look forward to hearing about how you have no hard stance about the earth being round
2
4
Replying to
Moreover, when you uncritically shared a Wikipedia page naming what you thought were scientific refutations of Astrology, I brought to you strong critiques of those studies that were nowhere to be seen in the Wiki page.
In case you missed it, here it is:
Quote Tweet
No, this Wikipedia page is very flawed and omits A LOT.
First, it omits all the methodological problems with Geoffrey Dean's meta-analysis.
astrology.co.uk/tests/basisofa
Show this thread
1
2
And here.
Quote Tweet
And I don't expect neither @Aella_Girl or @meditationstuff to know this stuff, but the Carlson double-blind test had opposite results when replicated.
researchgate.net/publication/32
Show this thread
1
1
Would you say sharing that Wiki page without any fact-checking effort was being "bad at thinking"?
1
1
Replying to
Which one? Carlson's double-blind test that offered support for astrology when replicated, or Geoffrey Deans' flawed and dishonest tests?
You would not know about any of that getting your information from that single Wiki page.
astrology.co.uk/tests/deantest
1