4 ms·
Contrary to you I actually provided a citation, you just refused to look at it. Or have you? So I am curious about your definition of "dubious uncited statistic
by Tichy 14y ago
Contrary to you I actually provided a citation, you just refused to look at it. Or have you? So I am curious about your definition of "dubious uncited statistics". Do you believe my statistics are wrong, and what makes you think so (citations?)?.
The only thing that's dumb is arguing with a psycho. I guess we are done, unless you can provide any substantial arguments at all.
- TheZenPsycho 14y agoYou provided a link to a shitty looking book on amazon. That doesn't make you credible.
- Tichy 14y agoMost research papers look pretty shitty. So you dismiss the argument because it isn't a fancy infographic? What exactly do you want, or what would be a credible source for you? The book provides more citations, in case you don't want to take the author for his word. In any case I take it you didn't read it (the free Kindle intro). I found another link today that could be relevant to you: http://lesswrong.com/lw/72d/strategic_ignorance_and_plausible_deniability/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/72d/strategic_ignorance_and_plausibl... (Less Wrong on Strategic Ignorance). I guess it's easier to just cling to feminist ideology than to check facts...