i just did. she left a few comments on my blog in the past, so i guess she read it at least sometimes. i follow her here on twitter and she follows me. that's it.
-
Theories need not be empirically corroborated in order to be classified as theories; it's just whether or not they are statements that attempt to describe some feature of observed phenomena (which are, themselves, types of lower-order theories).
She means this. Hbd is the thing to be explained as evolution is. Various theories attempt to do so, eg evolutionary psych ones for sex differences. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory …
-
-
As I said, I work in philosophy of science. You take HBD as a given that requires explanation, but that says nothing about whether HBD is true or false; it is a theory, predicated on interpreting evidence, which itself is gathered in ways that are theory-laden.
-
I have explained my position, which is accepted within the philosophical community; I have no interest in continuting a conversation with someone that helped organise a secret, invite-only eugencis conference at UCL. Ta.
-
Not really a eugenics conference and not particularly secret. See reply from 15 colleagues to media misrepresentation https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289618300837 …
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.