|
Post by Smithee on Apr 26, 2013 16:49:55 GMT 10
To dismiss objective and rational discussion of science, history, justice or, indeed, any subject which characterises us as civilized beings, they feel it ought to be enough to prefix “Liberal” to whatever term is used (or better still "bleeding-heart liberal"). When push comes to shove we see which side's science is found to be real science by standing up to scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 30, 2013 21:40:55 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on May 3, 2013 18:44:54 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on May 3, 2013 19:09:31 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on May 3, 2013 19:20:31 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on May 3, 2013 19:29:18 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on May 4, 2013 18:05:28 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on May 11, 2013 21:50:38 GMT 10
If the abstract rights of man will bear discussion and explanation, those of women, by a parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the same test. - Mary Wollstonecraft Evolutionary psychology and the nature-nurture debate. Reads more at andyhammondphd.wordpress.com/tag/evolutionary-psychology/Seems to be a typical strategy. A devotee tries to use Jedi mind tricks on an uninformed audience by asserting so-called Evolutionary Psychology is solid science, beyond doubt. When very real doubts are raised it is conceded to be a controversial field but that there is heaps of proof. When that proof is requested or what is said to be evidence is challenged the devotee turns to personal attack and the challenger is accused of being a creationist and having a political agenda. When the challenger persists in their scepticism the devotee spits the dummy and goes in search of another uninformed audience.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on May 12, 2013 7:36:09 GMT 10
If the abstract rights of man will bear discussion and explanation, those of women, by a parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the same test. - Mary Wollstonecraft Evolutionary psychology and the nature-nurture debate.Reads more at andyhammondphd.wordpress.com/tag/evolutionary-psychology/
Seems to be a typical strategy. A devotee tries to use Jedi mind tricks on an uninformed audience by asserting so-called Evolutionary Psychology is solid science, beyond doubt. When very real doubts are raised it is conceded to be a controversial field but that there is heaps of proof. When that proof is requested or what is said to be evidence is challenged the devotee turns to personal attack and the challenger is accused of being a creationist and having a political agenda. When the challenger persists in their scepticism the devotee spits the dummy and goes in search of another uninformed audience.Only one side of the "controversy" is supported by evidence which has withstood scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on May 12, 2013 17:36:09 GMT 10
Only one side of the "controversy" is supported by evidence which has withstood scrutiny. This could take the subject of Political Science to a much higher level. Are the premises on which different political persuasions are based scientifically true? For starters, beyond an assertion of being self-evident, are all people really created equal?
|
|