3 ms·
Yes of course but you could be confused as to the popularity of the two views. Again, why doesn't the journal Nature run a piece detailing how "evolution got i
by rukittenme 9y ago
Yes of course but you could be confused as to the popularity of the two views.
Again, why doesn't the journal Nature run a piece detailing how "evolution got it wrong"? Because it is incorrect and unnecessarily muddies the water. Because "Nature" has a shred of credibility and wishes to keep it. It is certainly possible to point to blind spots in our knowledge and say "Hah, you can't explain that!" Or to point at past errors and say "Hah, you're always getting it wrong!"
It is up to the paper or journal to screen such plainly and obviously fallacious information. Or at the very least categorize it in such a way that it is plainly evident that these are emerging or not-widely-held viewpoints.
- emodendroket 9y agoIt is less than "plainly obvious," to me, that Japan, South Korea, and China (not to mention the older historical examples of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, which are mentioned but get less attention in the piece) were all successful in their project of industrialization in spite of, rather than because of, common traits of the paths they all took to get there. Certainly I would not consider it comparable to arguing against evolution to claim the opposite.
- Apocryphon 9y agoEconomics is a far more fallible science than biology.