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
Interesting from the perspective of growth of knowledge that is. I don't presume to prescribe ways of life to individuals. ;)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JCMaas
I wonder if this is a gendered thing? You are goal-focused -what is true - and I am more interested in understanding how people think.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
You mind find this interesting in that context http://quillette.com/2017/04/17/rhetorical-trap-heart-neurosexism-debate/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, that's a good piece.
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.