> doesn't seem to represent the sci v/ well though bases its argument on it.
-
-
Replying to @annemscheel @dingding_peng and
I haven't done a review of what evo psychs believe but others have and
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @annemscheel and
it's pretty sexist. And yes, what they believe in their research.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @annemscheel and
@pzmyers reviews evo psychs' beliefs & claims: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/category/bad_science/evolutionary-psychology/ …1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @dingding_peng and
Whether or not evo psychs are sexist is irrelevant for the point >
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @annemscheel @o_guest and
I'm trying to make: Fine criticises weak studies&then acknowledges>pic.twitter.com/tKDvRZSt6U
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @annemscheel @o_guest and
better ones in footnotes only. So apparently even she sees the sci>
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @annemscheel @o_guest and
countering her arguments but doesn't discuss it. Not helpful.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @annemscheel @dingding_peng and
I can't agree on this as I have not read the book. So negative
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @annemscheel and
reviews might well hold true but in of itself this is a quote
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
mine as it's only one example of her "tactics" from a whole
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @annemscheel and
book. So until/unless I read it this is not convincing to me.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.