yeah, the full blow 19th c. phrenology was 95% bunk...but it's a sore spot. I first got black pilled in HS when a teacher (a) explained the scientific method, (b) said that phrenology was bunk. I asked "what experiment proved that?" A: "well, it's OBVIOUSLY bunk" https://twitter.com/BookDude/status/1034809594554589184 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
Replying to @MorlockP
That was poor reasoning on your part. The correct question would be "What experiment proved that phrenology is valid?" In the absence of any such, it's reasonable to conclude that its obvious bunkness is a provisionally correct indication of it's actual bunkness.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @random_eddie
I didn't make an assertion that phrenology either was or was no valid. "Unknown" is the correct default. The teacher dismissed it as invalid. He was the first to make a claim. He failed to back it up.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP @random_eddie
"reasonable to conclude that its obvious bunkness" what "obvious bunkness" ?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Replying to @LibertyFarmNH @random_eddie
the former
9:44 AM - 29 Aug 2018
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
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.