tomlock

12 ms·

121.
by tomlock 8y ago
>Leibniz's strange philosophy has had no impact at all on science in the West. What is this claim based on? His philosophy didn't have an impact on his own science, so perhaps a claim that a belief that God creates a mere appea
122.
by tomlock 8y ago
> In trying to explain the Islamic world’s intellectual laggardness, it is tempting to point to the obvious factors: authoritarianism, bad education, and underfunding (Muslim states spend significantly less than developed states on resea
123.
by tomlock 8y ago
If the right is arguing against the belief that ratios will be 50-50 automatically given equal opportunities, they aren't arguing against the left. In fact the video states that the assertion there are biological differences between me
124.
by tomlock 8y ago
Also here's a great video that might help Peterson fans understand some of the problems with his positions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas
125.
by tomlock 8y ago
It is a self-help book rooted in Jungian theory, widely discredited in modern psychology. His understanding of modern and postmodern philosophy is only deep enough to convince readers with no knowledge of those topics that he knows somethi
126.
by tomlock 8y ago
You're having to make a lot of presumptions to have to believe these employees are being paid fairly.
127.
by tomlock 8y ago
So you both think people are being paid reasonably and that Google and Apple are colluding with one another.
128.
by tomlock 8y ago
That'd be all very reasonable if we lived in a world where Apple and Google weren't colluding to keep wages down.
129.
by tomlock 8y ago
> The successful entrepreneur makes his money by capital gains in the share or venture capital markets and not by extracting it from his employees. Incorrect, that value is only sustained and increased by the efforts of company workers.
130.
by tomlock 8y ago
I'm assuming that you don't think risking making no money is enough to entitle a founder to their entire employees wage. How much does it entitle them to?
131.
by tomlock 8y ago
On the one hand it sounds like you're saying that software engineers are paid enough already, then on the other hand you're saying you think the compensation given to the software engineers that founded the company - which is much
132.
by tomlock 8y ago
> they're compensated fine already. I disagree, given the massive cash reserves the tech companies have. Yes, having a higher salary would be ridiculous in a lot of these cases, but we should moderate that through legislation that b
133.
by tomlock 8y ago
But people can have one body with multiple chromosome combinations. As soon as we start admitting that there needs to be an "other" category, we're admitting that the categorisation we currently have is at the very least, in
134.
by tomlock 8y ago
If there is ever ambiguity, the classification is not binary.
135.
by tomlock 8y ago
But, the idea that the classification is binary is inherently flawed if, as you state, there are special cases.
136.
by tomlock 8y ago
"The right parts" isn't a scientific concept.
137.
by tomlock 8y ago
"The Second Sex" by Simone De Beauvoir is on here twice. I'd recommend if you're looking to read an existentialist book by the same author - check out "The Ethics of Ambiguity" which is an attempt to form an e
138.
by tomlock 8y ago
What's odd to me is that some people seem to, even in the face of this, think it's fair to criticize liberal arts journals for sometimes publishing bad papers. People are just people, in every field.
139.
by tomlock 8y ago
But the "majority of americans" doesn't consistently agree on what is and isn't political correctness, so it really is based on "things I don't like".
140.
by tomlock 8y ago
Agreed. In my opinion, labeling someone as too politically correct will only garner a response of "that's not true". So basically anytime anyone says it, it's just name calling, nobody learned anything more about the o
141.
by tomlock 8y ago
> as the University of Maryland criminologist John Laub told me, it’s because any suggestion of a possible biological or genetic basis for crime could be misconstrued as racism. Or, it is because biological and genetic factors aren'
142.
by tomlock 8y ago
Which tribal effects do you think dominate? I can make a guess at what thinkers you may be following, given some of the words you've used here. I'm assuming this, but lets just say for a moment you believe that these disciplines
143.
by tomlock 8y ago
So you're not advocating for rigorous empirical standards? You've come into this article, which only has evidence that papers written in bad faith can be accepted by peer-reviewed journals (trivial), already presupposing that the
144.
by tomlock 8y ago
Considering that you're advocating for rigorous empirical standards, and considering that in the case of economics, a full THIRD of articles submitted to two top tier economics journals could not be replicated, which is quite similar t
145.
by tomlock 8y ago
If you presuppose that the category is absurd, the submission of an absurd paper is a vacuous act that proves nothing, and your point should be able to be easily demonstrated by your knowledge of the field as it stands.
146.
by tomlock 8y ago
But if your argument kind of hinges on the idea that these disciplines axiomatically believe in their righteousness due to their lack of scientific data, wouldn't it be quite strange to say you believe they're making scholarship m
147.
by tomlock 8y ago
What makes you feel like you're an expert on what is and isn't reasonable?
148.
by tomlock 8y ago
Because both address getting papers that are incorrect and have made up evidence into prominent peer-reviewed journals.
149.
by tomlock 8y ago
Pay attention to the article! The authors of these hoax papers don't demonstrate or address a methodological flaw in gender studies. They demonstrate that you can get papers written in bad faith into a peer reviewed journal, which is
150.
by tomlock 8y ago
Things are either fallible or they aren't, and since it seems you're willing to accept that all fields are fallible "to some degree" aka are fallible, we shouldn't edify any of them uncritically. Are you saying tha

More ›