On Twitter, @razibkhan is excellent.
A biologist, specifically an evolutionary geneticist. Why on earth would we care what a philosopher thinks about a purely empirical question? Most of them don't even know what an Ancestry Informative Marker (AIM) is.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
-
Assuming that is has an empirical answer is exactly why a philosopher should be brought in.
-
I wasn't assuming it has an empirical answer. I was convinced it has an empirical answer by learning about the empirical evidence.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
The reason why you would care is that EVERY science was philosophy once. When a practice becomes axiomatic it moves out of philosophy and into science. Cosmology, medicine, geometry, you name it. All started with philosophical minds.
-
Yes, and evolutionary genetics hasn't been the domain of philosophers since about 1900. So why consult philosophers now, especially if they don't really understand the genetics?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Because definitional/conceptual questions are things philosophers handle better than biologists?
-
This is not a purely empirical question. What is a "race" is not an empirical question.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Lewontin wasn't so much wrong as deeply self-deceived and conceptually incoherent due to his overwhelming ideological bias.
- 2 more replies
-
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.