That's not how science works. Believing in science means you ABSOLUTELY can be refuted by science
Since I believe in science, I cannot be refuted by science – thank you very much for the article, I will have a look.https://twitter.com/freemonotheist/status/1088452582954024964 …
-
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Don’t steal and bastardize the word science. If it’s not based on the scientific method-it’s not true science. Science simply looks for the truth
-
Can you state with 100% certainty that the scientific method is being applied properly in 2019? Or is it more likely that scientists are more interested in grants and funding than producing work that might be politically unpalatable?
-
Good question. Science, like reality lives in its very defined definition. How we interpret a said outcome is a different story. Scientific Ethics are easily corrupted by agenda & special interests. That’s the landscape
-
The detective keeps looking
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This article's conclusion appear to be accurate as long as children stop developing at age 2.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Don't they write they started with 60 000 mothers to end up with 1200 babies from similar social, economic and health status? That's like looking for exactly same mothers/families first, and then proving they have similar babies.
-
So it proves that if you take a family of doctors or lawyers across the globe, that live in the same conditions they babies will have similar weight and IQ - if they live in decent conditions. Well done science ;)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Don't see a 'study' one article links to another article, and then I googled the intergrowth thing, and its a thinktank dedicated standards for fetal and child development. How many clicks until I find a study? Or a plausible hypothesis?
-
Oh good. I thought I was doing something wrong.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
@StefanMolyneux would love to see a video response to this article!Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s a flawed study and what it postulates is ridiculous. If it were true we would have almost no genetic variation within our population, and evolution would have been impossible.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nope some are born great, they have a higher average intellegence and their genetic compostion accelerates milestones, that is true within any given population. Others may struggle over time to achieve equality by age 30 or so, but by age 18 those indivudals are leaders.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The common science phrase “but we now know...”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There's that magic word again. "Nutrition."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm not so sure gauging a 2 year old intellect is definitive.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.