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 …
-
-
by which I mean "95% of phrenology is nonsense, but that doesn't mean that the concept is nonsense, in the same way that exposing ground unicorn horn to aqua regia doesn't create the philosopher's stone, but chemistry can create nylon"
-
If 95% of X is nonsense, but the concept of X is not, I wonder if you've correctly identified the concept of X.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
"Alchemy eventually became chemistry so it was true all along" is not a convincing argument. Yes, alchemy was debunked.
-
ok, then by that standard, phrenology was debunked if you'd argued "no, it was refined", then I'd argue "ok, phrenology was refined" basically comes down to how you want to define "debunked" and I'm willing to work with you on that we both agree on the underlying phenomena
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.