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".
-
-
Replying to @random_eddie
If you think that phrenology HAS been debunked, please link to a debunking.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @random_eddie
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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 -
Replying to @random_eddie @MorlockP1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @random_eddie @MorlockP
I take this to suggest that phrenology has been debunked, rather than merely not proven or merely seeming stupid.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @random_eddie @MorlockP
I'm now somewhat curious what the 5% of phrenology is that you think might not be bunk, and which aspects of phrenology have since been proven by studies.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @random_eddie
* skull size correlates with IQ * thicker facial features, specifically supra-orbital ridges, correlate with high T, agressiveness, criminality * other, unspecified, that viewers can detect and use to guess things like criminality, education, sexual orientation
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP
"I'm extremely uninterested in whether nylon is alchemy." Noted.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @random_eddie
not fair You tell me if you want to define the term "alchemy" so as to include nylon or not, and I'll use the term that way. Definitions are stamp collecting, and are uninteresting. I've said this a few times, and now you're being a dick.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.