@pzmyers reviews evo psychs' beliefs & claims: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/category/bad_science/evolutionary-psychology/ …
-
-
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 @dingding_peng and
But you seemed to support the book here despite not having read it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @annemscheel @dingding_peng and
I support the book and I explained why.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @dingding_peng and
But the reasons you support it seem unfalsifiable: I agree w/ you >
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @annemscheel @dingding_peng and
certainly not — I know personally people who have read what
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Cordelia Fine has to say and it has changed their minds.
-
-
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.
