Frost is wrong to support this particular conception of "responsible scholarship". There's nothing wrong with anonymous sources for certain
-
-
kinds of things. You may want to be more careful about checking the anonymous source's own data and sources, but otherwise they're fine
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Anonymous raw data: potentially questionable Anonymous analysis: check it just like any other analysis
1 reply 3 retweets 10 likes -
What he did, citing a blog in your paper is something else.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
He's calling it irresponsible scholarship to cite anonymous analysis like that. He's wrong
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
I don't think so. In the adult world, we disclose our identity if we wanna be something. Plus HBD chick is an ideologically charged name.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
there's no ideology in human biodiversity.
5 replies 1 retweet 18 likes -
There is ideology everywhere, even from people who say they're not biased/ideologically driven. That's one thing Gould was right about.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Race__Realist @RaceRealist88 and
the term human biodiversity simply means the biological diversity found in the human species. nothing more. (see marks.)
3 replies 3 retweets 11 likes -
Come on, there is a science that focuses on it, it's called medicine.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
lol
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.