Yes. Skeptics will say that climate science models are rudimentary, cranks will say that climate science is a hoax. Big difference.https://twitter.com/boostahfazoo/status/1155270964311134214?s=21 …
-
-
Replying to @clairlemon
World of a difference in both - the Science behind it and the costs of getting it wrong/not doing anything about it. The more interesting Q is why you're stuck on the IQ thing, of all science that's being dissed. It's interesting but one can dump it if one needs to.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @UntergrundmannG
Its because I spent years studying the topic. Am a psychology graduate.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @clairlemon
Fair enough. But then that's the argument even the "critical studies" types make, for their "years of scholarship". No? The point I'm making is to do with the spectrum tending towards irrefutable hard science. And even at the " hardest" end, things just poof off e.g. quantum.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @UntergrundmannG @clairlemon
And that even within Psych, there are well established domains of science and then there is intelligence. What's the need to get fixated on trying to assert that this is empirical science to the same degree as climate? One can stay open. No?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @UntergrundmannG
Psychometrics is by far the most well validated & robust area of psychology.
3 replies 0 retweets 16 likes
s/most well/only/
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.