No because even I pointed out that's never been the argument, people have acknowledges genitalia is different lol
Prolific "video games make you bad" researcher exposed as planning to refuse to publish his work if it doesn't show video game make you bad + mor
- Thread starter Dwarvenhobble
- Start date
I'd suggest it might be more useful for you to improve your reading comprehension.
The results fundamentally cannot address nature/nurture, because they are conducted after substantial development, usually adults. Unless you can procure some brains of our 0.1-7 million year extinct hominid predecessors, any statement you want to make about differences since we left the trees automatically needs a huge question mark.
The reason the results are problematic is firstly that if the paper is really looked at in detail, it's actually revealing differences in a miniscule percentage of brain connections. So if (for instance) a "female" brain is 98% similar to a "male" brain, how much difference is that 2% really creating? If we can say that we can predict whether a brain is a man or woman's with (say) 70-80% reliability, what that tells us is that the differences are very small and inconsistent. So do men and women really have inherently different brains, if we can't definitively tell one from another? And then, to what do extent these apparent differences actually translate into function and behaviour?
We know perfectly well that brains are plastic, that experience drives development and therefore alterations in brain structure: studies on (pre-satnav) taxi drivers, for instance, revealed they had enlarged anterior hippocampi, that being a major part of the brain that deals with spatial memory. How precisely this may relate to gender is surely unclear, but the theoretical basis that differing gender roles (thus experiences) may drive differences in brain development is reasonable.
The point is not that the nurture argument isn't largely circumstantial, it's just that the nature argument isn't any better.
It should not be a problem for anyone to say it is too much of an unknown, but I cannot help wonder that there is an agenda behind people who want to claim otherwise. And indeed, it seems to me that conservatives do put much more weight on theories of inherent gender brain differences. That's because it fits into how they are inclined to view the world with traditional gender roles and organisation of society, such as male breadwinners and female childminders, they are vindicated by biology. But, like I said, at least we've mostly got past the point where women were assumed to be intellectually inferior and such adherents believed neuroscience would prove it.
As expected, you've just given a strawman description of what others have been saying, and then based the rest on that.
They didn't. People said certain neuroscientific conceptions were "hogwash" and "based on conservative views on gender as a simple duality". You then concluded that since the video also included Dr. Verma, they must also be calling her a conservative, which simply doesn't follow.
It's not "inconsistent" to believe in some theories and not others, just because there are figures in the scientific community who support both. That's utter nonsense.
Put it this way: Darwinism and Lamarckism are both scientific theories. There are scientific figures who subscribe to both. I (and most people) believe in one but not the other. That is not somehow "inconsistent", just because they're both scientific theories. I (and most people) believe one is more solid and has more basis than the other.
It's a really pretty weak & nonsensical kind of "gotcha" to try to paint the belief in one scientific concept but not a different scientific theory as "inconsistent". It doesn't even make a shred of sense.
Exactly, so you deny the science because it's similar to (or "based on") what conservatives think. That's what I accused you of. Thank you for confirming.
Last edited:
way to just ignore the point that science shouldn't be based on random opinions, conservative or otherwise.
Ah yes, we're pushing the "science is infallable" argument again.
Science which is based on a flawed ideology will produce flawed results. People like to act like studies and results cant be manipulated. This topic is about how a biased study is being discarded because the results did not matcn the intended message. Will it spell the end of the discussion? No. It will be unpublished and abandoned, while the factions searching for this answer will simply pursue other methods next time.
Science which is based on a flawed ideology will produce flawed results. People like to act like studies and results cant be manipulated. This topic is about how a biased study is being discarded because the results did not matcn the intended message. Will it spell the end of the discussion? No. It will be unpublished and abandoned, while the factions searching for this answer will simply pursue other methods next time.
Science is science. It doesn't matter what it's "based on", what matters is if it's reproducible. It doesn't matter if the combustion engine or the computer was based on an theory born from Hitler's LSD-fueled trip, the science is sound and we have engines and computers. It doesn't matter if "African-Americans have different physical characteristics" is rooted in racism, because science has proven that we do!
Science is separate from what it's "based on". Good science, that is.
You, Geth, and others are denying science because a conservative was involved somewhere in the process, and of course, those people are literally Satan, and can't be trusted.
This is how you get things like "HCQ is bad because Trump likes it, and whatever Trump says is bad!"
I suppose you wouldn't listen to Fauci telling you to wear masks if he went home and beat his wife, right? Because bad people means bad science, right?
Actually they've been going out of their way to explain WHY it's not good science, in spite of you just playing your old "nahuh!" card, waiting for them to get tired of going in circles.
Back in the day, it was Tipper Gore telling us music was harmful. How far back does the Hayes code go?
People will always see an angle in trying to control what others think and do.
Yes, after being called out for their initial invalid reasons, and after being badgered about it for several pages, they had to face the realization that they did a bad thing and needed to come up for better reasons to reject it, and I commend them for that.
Or should I not commend them for that? Maybe I should take a page from their book and say that their rejection is "based on" partisanship, so any valid reasons they have for dismissing the study (that they came up with later) are automatically invalidated?
The reasons weren't invalid, they just condensed a significant amount of information down to a concept. The concept that biased science comes from biased ideologies.
You just thought you saw a cute gotcha, and forced everyone to spell it out for you.
You just thought you saw a cute gotcha, and forced everyone to spell it out for you.
"Based on a conservative theory" is an invalid reason to reject science.
The only valid reason to reject science would be on the merits alone.
Oh, is that what you call it?
"No, I wasn't wrong, I just condensed a significant amount of information down to a concept! It's really YOUR fault for not unpacking what I said!"
Seems like you can use that excuse for anything.
"You're a dum-dum poo-poop head!"
"That's not a rebuttal"
"I was just condensing a significant amount of information down to a concept!"
You're getting closer! You're almost there! Just a little more critical thought and you'll understand it!
"conservatives funded studies are often bad science..."
Does "often" mean "always"?
If not, then might you be wrong for rejecting such a study out of hand?
When haven't they?
But it looks like you understand the point and you have no further rebuttal. Glad I could help you navigate this difficult concept.
Last edited:
Also your self congratulations when you think you've won, only fool yourself.
A person including or omitting "often" in speech patterns is pretty random. Most people understand others are almost mever speaking in absolutes, so its superfluous.
I stand by my words. See post #88, the post that nobody has a rebuttal to.
Regarding "often", answer me this:
Is it a fallacy to dismiss science because it comes from a place that "often" produces bad science?
Yes or no.
Hey, remember those times Houseman acted nonplussed that people could think he wasn't speaking in good faith/ with genuine humility? Hah, good times.