Turkheimer strikes back! (but misses) http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7267
-
-
Probably safe to just ignore him at this point. He's an aging, irrelevant academic who will live just long enough to see his life's work rent to nothing. But I get the urge to respond.
-
I meant what I said about him earlier. I do think he is a good researcher, but clearly misguided about group differences, and according to his own words, apparently so for moral-political reasons. He has an ideological blindspot, but many people do.
-
You have no scientific evidence to back up your views on group differences. You just like to tell us 'oh we'll have something soon ..' lol
-
Surely you mean the extant scientific evidence is not sufficient to meet whatever standard you have, right? If you state that sandard, your claim can be evaluated.
-
Why don't you just show us your scientific evidence and let us judge?
-
Why would anyone submit to that demand? You can always just change your standard post-hoc.
-
So you don't have any. As i thought
-
I could say the same for your epistemic standards; but I wouldn't presume.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
FYI: His Pakman interview was systematically destroyed a few days ago by
@thealthype:https://youtu.be/WPV6Hz9iwQoThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.