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 -
Replying to @MorlockP
Point conceded. You do on occasion seem to defend phrenology as if it were valid, rather than merely an instance where one of your high school teachers was insufficiently rigorous in a discussion with one of his brightest students.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @random_eddie
ok, valid request for clarification there are two different timestamps / two different stories in 9th grade I merely asserted "you have not proved it pro or con" in 2018 I assert "there have since been studies that prove some aspects of it"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
this is the skull volume thing, where Gould said "racist ; data doesnt support"...and he was wrong?
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.