Those arguments can be convincing because based on something. They can be wrong. If they can't be, its pseudoscience. Else, science.
-
-
Replying to @JCMaas
Yes, if we define science as addressing any argument which can be right or wrong but I feel this misses the essence.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @JCMaas
That's fine too. Its for the pure interest of seeing how differently people perceive things and the connections they make.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @JCMaas
We can tell ppl they shouldn't make these connections & that they don't work but ultimately what's interesting is that they do & why they do
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Sure, but you can only understand that if you formulate the best hyp. It is the growth of knowl. that is interest. Not 1 part of the process
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JCMaas
I don't think you can tell people what they should find interesting. It won't change what they actually do find interesting.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @JCMaas
Its way more important whether people are right or wrong to think what they do but for me the interest is in understanding how they think.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @JCMaas
This is why I focus on how women thought about religion, the connections they made & use they made of it even tho God seems not to exist
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Yes, but you still want to know if what you are thinking about that topic resembles anything real. So, you need to test-reject-accept hypo.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I do, yes, but even tho I think God is not real, I've still spent 20 years looking at how people think about God because that is interesting
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.