Steven Pinker explains the cognitive biases we all suffer from and how they can short-circuit rational thinking and lead us into believing stupid things. Skip to 12:15 to bypass the preamble.
Steven Pinker explains the cognitive biases we all suffer from and how they can short-circuit rational thinking and lead us into believing stupid things. Skip to 12:15 to bypass the preamble.
I’ve read two of them before and skim reading doesnt take much time. I’ve been reading Pharyngula for 20 years.
Spamming as a verb != spam the noun. You can spam 20 perfectly good systematic review articles.
This would be the “engaging in bad faith” flag. I’m interested to hear how you articulate the flaws in the premise behind evopysch.
Granted that was semantic.
Edit:
Genuine typo there should read “they aren’t all notable”, that’s dyslexia for you.
You didn’t answer my question.
Did you read all of those articles extremely quickly or not, and if not, how do you know what they said?
Also, calling your absolutely ludicrous claim about CFI “semantic” is pretty damn dishonest too.
What was my “ludicrous” claim about the CFI?
Ah, so you’ve read two of them and yet you claim you know what they all said.
Dishonest.
You dismissed my CFI link because “Well that’s not CFI that’s Skeptical Enquirer and it’s an article from Massimo Pigliucci and the headline is subject to Betteridges law of headlines.”
And please don’t insult my intelligence by claiming that you said “well that’s not CFI that’s Skeptical Enquirer” but that wasn’t a dismissal of the article.
It’s also dishonest because you mention Dr. Pigliucci as if he’s some nobody who doesn’t know what he’s talking about rather than a biologist.
And skimmed the other two and found the same problem i mentioned earlier. Note, you aren’t refuting that.
Lazy maybe.
A correction is not a dismissal.
Yes given that author concludes that evopsych has problems but isnt a pseudoscience. Sorry I thought you had read it.
It’s a semantic correction. CfI puts out press releases and policy documents and this was an invited article from a third party, not unworthy of clarification.
I implied none of what you allege. Its probably more correct to describe him as primarily a philosopher than a biologist but that’s not a criticism.
STOP BEING SO FUCKING DISHONEST
Sorry, you don’t get to say that it is incorrect to say someone with a degree in biology who won an award for being an evolutionary biologist is not a biologist. Not if you wish to be called honest.
In fact, I would place a wager on his having more education in the biological sciences than you, considering:
TWO doctorates in biology, but let’s just dismiss any criticism he might have of EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY.
Oh, I know, it wasn’t a dismissal or a criticism when you responded to me with what was clearly a dismissal and criticism of that article. Give me a fucking break. I doubt you even read it so, much like the other ones you admitted you didn’t read despite dishonestly claiming you knew what they said.
He’s literally employed as professor of philosophy at City College New York
Maybe take a break from this?
Once again, I must remark upon your talent to insert words in place of other peoles’. At no point did I imply he wasn’t a biologist, he is simply better described as primarily a philosopher given his work.
I mean he probably does? He’s probably got a nicer house than me as well.
Did you read the article you posted where he concluded evopsych wasn’t a pseudoscience? I’m not criticising him at all, he’s actually supporting my point. I am beginning to suspect you didn’t actually read it.
The use of caplocks is really helping get your point across.
I can’t help you
Gladly, you’ve been deeply unpleasant and our time is limited.
And yet you know more about evolutionary psychology than he does. Or at least enough to not bother actually reading what he has to say about it.
Also, your obvious sealioning is not fooling anyone.