Quote:
Originally Posted by herekitty  nm |
This is the most intelligent thing you’ve said yet.
Quote:
|
I don't care how smart you think you are, posts like this reveal your true mentality. this is pure tard warz shite & I'm not at all interested.
|
So fuck off.
Quote:
|
maybe they are, but that doesn't mean I don't get to call you on the ones that aren't, particularly when you're trying to pass them off as fact and not speculation.
|
Actually the gene centric theory had absolutely nothing to do with the sociobiological cannon. So your actual bone of contention here is erroneous.
Quote:
|
I don't know why you even stoop to read my posts since I'm clearly the most ignorant person on the board.
|
You do make a strong case.
Quote:
|
This is a perfect example of why I consider you pretentious. Did you know you can say what you think without dropping 3 names?
|
Yes but it would be foolish to debate philosophy of science without engaging the giants of the topic. Just like it would be foolish to debate gravity without mentioning Einstein or evolution without engaging Darwin.
I am devotedly pretentious, but did you know you can refute what somebody said and not just dwindle on the less important matter that they included refferences when they said it? Much less inane that way.
Quote:
|
yes I do see the difference but the fact remains that you're a whiner and I have studied these things in the lab and with statistics. Personally I think your constant namedropping is nothing less than an attempt shore up credibility.
|
That means absolutely nothing (so have I, as a matter of fact). Other bioanthropologists/geneticists have reached different conclusions. The truth is not revealed clear and untrammeled on a swab. Thomas Kuhn famously thought ( sorry to make you think about what somebody smarter than you might have thought) that scientists have little appetite at all for truth, and for the most part, go far out of their way to funnel data so it fits a given paradigm. In short, quit acting like your ‘lab study’ indicates anything but your ability to enroll in a course. Tell us exactly what the conclusions of your study were, and the methods you used.
Quote:
oh wow, you think you're some kind of messenger of god, why am I not surprised?
look, you can pretend that you've made no claims but by saying that what I said was stupid, you are saying that what biological anthropologists have said is stupid. You're not exactly neutral on the topic.
|
There are many bioanthropologists that are stupid. Maybe you are one of them. I do know that debates about race and genetics often tread on political landmines and scientists tend to make an ass of themselves often. Ive never spoke to a lecturer who didnt think Stephen j Gould and Richard Lewontin were liars and sophists. They were Marxists so why would we expect partiality? In any case ive not said any provisional position is 'stupid'.
Linear Mode
