Sad. RT @sapinker: Nagel & Plantinga favorably review each other's books crediting the disproven pseudoscience of IDhttp://bit.ly/WCHbo7
-
-
-
@normative It is sad. But Pinker, Dennett, Dawkins, (Hauser!) aren't above party-line pressure on reviewers too http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/02/18/the-weird-irony-at-the-heart-of-the-napoleon-chagnon-affair/ …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@sapinker That's ridiculous. I would expect more from Nagel.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
MT
@sapinker Nagel & Plantinga review each other's books crediting disproven pseudoscience of "Intelligent Design" http://bit.ly/WCHbo7Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@sapinker 2nd para: "Nagel does not endorse ID." 'Disproven pseudoscience' is misplaced; ID may be wrong, but it's theory, and unfalsifiableThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
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.