3 ms·
> phrenology 200-year-old research on phrenology was supported by dozens of data points. Today's research on cognitive sex-differences is supported by billions
by Pilfer 9y ago
> phrenology
200-year-old research on phrenology was supported by dozens of data points. Today's research on cognitive sex-differences is supported by billions of data points.
>little [sic] evidence to back it up
And where is the evidence you've brought up that disproves the current scientific consensus? That is, where is your evidence disproving our massive trove of data showing cognitive differences between men and women?
His position is backed by evidence from thousands of scientific studies performed over the past century. Yours is not.
>[something about you predicting the future]
Now you've dropped below rational discourse and resorted to name calling. Do you see how trivial it is to turn your own argument against you?
You don't think in 100 years we won't laugh at people like you who ignore reality to justify certain ideological views? Your logic is flawed because you have a fixed mindset, which I believe is a logical dead end with little evidence to back it up. You are on the wrong side of history, and I make that opinion strongly.
- mempko 9y agoI doubt the scientists would back his position. It's a gross misunderstanding of their research. He takes the research and jumps a huge gap to get to his conclusion.
- Pilfer 9y ago>I doubt the scientists would back his position. It's a gross misunderstanding of their research. He takes the research and jumps a huge gap to get to his conclusion. And what might his conclusion be? You don't even bother stating what his conclusion is. You don't even bother providing evidence as to why it is a "gross misunderstanding" of research.