which is to say, I have zero vested interest in any particular definition you define "debunked" and I'll go along w it
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
With my limited understanding of what "phrenology" constitutes, I would not have associated those propositions with phrenology, nor would I have assumed that the well-established debunking of phrenology necessarily also invalidates those propositions.
-
I've already expressed, pretty darned clearly, I think: * the axioms that I will defend * my extreme lack of interest in debating terminology the vast majority of your most recent tweets on this seem to fall into category 2 I'm bowing out
- 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.