the_dunk_tank

15681 readers

225 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this.

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

179

"it's basic science!!!" | the basic science in question: (hexbear.net)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

128 comments fedilink hide all child comments

local twitter user forgets how the sun works makima-think

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 46 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Always fun when an evolutionary biologist is like "No we actually can fit everything into neat human categories with no outliers or anything. Because statistics."

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Especially one as supposedly rational and scientific as Richard Dawkins, completely unaware that he's in his feelings and afraid of having to acknowledge that something he takes for granted is complicated, actually.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Can't believe South Park predicted his future.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

YEAH! POUND MY MONKEY HOLE, RICHARD!!!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Anyone have anything on dawkins talking about species? I'd love to hear his take, and see which school of thought in the philosophy of science he leans towards.

Obviously it's NOT the one where it's argued that the species designation is best understood through parsimony, it has to be that there is a viable offspring (and all this only words for sexually reproducing organisms, which is... hmm a rather small minority!) wait no, ok the offspring needs to be able to have offspring, wait no that doesn't work OK at least second generation progeny need to be able to reproduce!!

Ask him to point to a species, he operates as a rationalist and leans on empiricism. He'll point to a member of a population, or a subpopulation, and never a species. His rationalism is a vulgar rationalism which operates on rudimentary syllogistic logic (ask 'em to solve a paradox or contradiction without dialectics, and with his true false cartesian logic) which really is idealism. Comrades will probably know this, but for further reading Lenin gives a thorough rebuke in his Materialism and Empirio-criticism, really get to see Lenin the philosopher in full force.

He, Pinker, Dennett, and Harris are sophists. Peddling their 'knowledge' to the highest bidder. Whatever respectable scientific work they did was during a different era. Without the opulence afforded to members of the imperial core they would have nothing.