A humanities scholar rebuts criticisms of the “conceptual penis” paperhttps://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/05/21/a-humanities-scholar-rebuts-criticisms-of-the-conceptual-penis-paper/ …
-
-
Replying to @Evolutionistrue @CHSommers
Humanities is pseudo-science because it is based on feelings nor in facts
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
No. History, in particular, can & should be done rigorously & empirically.
1 reply 2 retweets 7 likes -
Only if it is based on archaeological data
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
On data, yes. Mine focuses mostly on manuscripts & early books, legal & church records.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
In that case it is basic to reproduce these records and not to try to reach to any ideological conclusion about them
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @didaclopez
That's basic, yes. Here I produced an edition of a 16th century anatomical broadsheet & gave context. http://helenpluckrose.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/the-woman-1540-anatomical-fugitive.html …
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @didaclopez
More often, I focus on religious writing & there an ideology does exist & can be discussed & understood better.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Understanding how people thought & lived & providing evidence of this is not pseudoscience. Limitations of knowledge admitted
-
-
-
Replying to @didaclopez
In the etymological sense of the stem 'sci' pertaining to empirical knowledge.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.