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.
which is to say, I have zero vested interest in any particular definition you define "debunked" and I'll go along w it
-
-
the only thing I feel strongly about is the point "the default null hypothesis for ANY question is 'not proven either way' " c.f. Russell's teapot
-
I completely understand and agree with everything you have said here. I'll note that you'll spur fewer unhelpful discussions about the definition of terms such as "phrenology" and "debunked" if you avoid implying "phrenology has not been debunked".
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
GP Phrenologist read your bewbs, right? If so, don't care if it's scientific or valid or anything. Where can I sign up to get my phrenology license?
#KnowsItsHeadNotBewbs
End of 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.