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"
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP
I've not read up, but I suspect "prove some aspects of it" refers to things that aren't what anyone in modern times would consider part of "phrenology-the-thing-from-the-olden-days-that-was-psuedoscientific-and-debunked" aka head bump reading.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @MorlockP @random_eddie
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"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP
If 95% of X is nonsense, but the concept of X is not, I wonder if you've correctly identified the concept of X.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @random_eddie
not pissed, just spergy: I'm 10% interested in debating phrenology and 0.0001% interested in debating the terminology around the semantics of the knowledge of phrenology
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @random_eddie
which is to say, I have zero vested interest in any particular definition you define "debunked" and I'll go along w it
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @random_eddie
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP
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".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @random_eddie
If you think that phrenology HAS been debunked, please link to a debunking.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
25 years ago I was upset (and am STILL upset) that people conflate "seemingly retarded on the face of it" with "debunked". Relativity is seemingly retarded...but it is correct! Evolution is seemingly retarded. LOTS - maybe MOST - correct things are seemingly retarded.
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP @random_eddie
"debunked" is not the same as "not proven", which in turn is not the same as "seems stupid"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP
I'm not an expert in the history of phrenology, so I have to rely on third parties. Here's a page that I found in a cursory search. The first section (before "Cold Reading") lists specific claims made by phrenologists and states which ones were later found correct or disproven.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
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.