this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
22 points (75.0% liked)

Skeptic

1297 readers
1 users here now

A community for Scientific Skepticism:

Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism, sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.

Do not confuse this with General Skepticism, Philosophical Skepticism, or Denialism.

Things we like:

Things we don't like:

Other communities of interest:

"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
22
Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things (youtu.be)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
88 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Steven Pinker explains the cognitive biases we all suffer from and how they can short-circuit rational thinking and lead us into believing stupid things. Skip to 12:15 to bypass the preamble.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

(Although all those articles follow the same formula: find some garbage evopsych publications => conclude the whole premise is nonsense)

Wow, you read those articles that you labeled as "spam" very quickly.

I've read two of them before and skim reading doesnt take much time. I've been reading Pharyngula for 20 years.

Spamming as a verb != spam the noun. You can spam 20 perfectly good systematic review articles.

Or did you not read them and thus not know what they said? Seems dishonest either way.

This would be the "engaging in bad faith" flag. I'm interested to hear how you articulate the flaws in the premise behind evopysch.

But I am amused by your CFI is not the Skeptical Inquirer claim when that's literally the publication put out by CFI.

Granted that was semantic.

Edit:

And they aren’t notable

Now I know you're being dishonest. Not only does the article state their qualifications and link to where they wrote it, suggesting Stephen Jay Gould is not notable is ludicrous.

Genuine typo there should read "they aren't all notable", that's dyslexia for you.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

You didn't answer my question.

Did you read all of those articles extremely quickly or not, and if not, how do you know what they said?

Also, calling your absolutely ludicrous claim about CFI "semantic" is pretty damn dishonest too.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

You didn't answer my question.

Wow, you read those articles that you labeled as "spam" very quickly.

I've read two of them before and skim reading doesnt take much time. I've been reading Pharyngula for 20 years.

What was my "ludicrous" claim about the CFI?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Ah, so you've read two of them and yet you claim you know what they all said.

Dishonest.

You dismissed my CFI link because "Well that’s not CFI that’s Skeptical Enquirer and it’s an article from Massimo Pigliucci and the headline is subject to Betteridges law of headlines."

And please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that you said "well that’s not CFI that’s Skeptical Enquirer" but that wasn't a dismissal of the article.

It's also dishonest because you mention Dr. Pigliucci as if he's some nobody who doesn't know what he's talking about rather than a biologist.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ah, so you've read two of them and yet you claim you know what they all said.

And skimmed the other two and found the same problem i mentioned earlier. Note, you aren't refuting that.

Dishonest.

Lazy maybe.

You dismissed my CFI link because

A correction is not a dismissal.

the headline is subject to Betteridges law of headlines."

Yes given that author concludes that evopsych has problems but isnt a pseudoscience. Sorry I thought you had read it.

And please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that you said "well that’s not CFI that’s Skeptical Enquirer" but that wasn't a dismissal of the article.

It's a semantic correction. CfI puts out press releases and policy documents and this was an invited article from a third party, not unworthy of clarification.

It's also dishonest because you mention Dr. Pigliucci as if he's some nobody who doesn't know what he's talking about rather than a biologist.

I implied none of what you allege. Its probably more correct to describe him as primarily a philosopher than a biologist but that's not a criticism.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Its probably more correct to describe him as primarily a philosopher than a biologist but that’s not a criticism.

STOP BEING SO FUCKING DISHONEST

In 1997, while working at the University of Tennessee, Pigliucci received the Theodosius Dobzhansky Prize,[12] awarded annually by the Society for the Study of Evolution[1] to recognize the accomplishments and future promise of an outstanding young evolutionary biologist.

Sorry, you don't get to say that it is incorrect to say someone with a degree in biology who won an award for being an evolutionary biologist is not a biologist. Not if you wish to be called honest.

In fact, I would place a wager on his having more education in the biological sciences than you, considering:

He has a doctorate in genetics from the University of Ferrara, Italy, a PhD in biology from the University of Connecticut, and a PhD in philosophy of science from the University of Tennessee.

TWO doctorates in biology, but let's just dismiss any criticism he might have of EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY.

Oh, I know, it wasn't a dismissal or a criticism when you responded to me with what was clearly a dismissal and criticism of that article. Give me a fucking break. I doubt you even read it so, much like the other ones you admitted you didn't read despite dishonestly claiming you knew what they said.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Its probably more correct to describe him as primarily a philosopher than a biologist but that’s not a criticism.

STOP BEING SO FUCKING DISHONEST

He's literally employed as professor of philosophy at City College New York

Maybe take a break from this?

Sorry, you don't get to say that it is incorrect to say someone with a degree in biology who won an award for being an evolutionary biologist is not a biologist. Not if you wish to be called honest.

Once again, I must remark upon your talent to insert words in place of other peoles'. At no point did I imply he wasn't a biologist, he is simply better described as primarily a philosopher given his work.

In fact, I would place a wager on his having more education in the biological sciences than you, considering: He has a doctorate in genetics from the University of Ferrara, Italy, a PhD in biology from the University of Connecticut, and a PhD in philosophy of science from the University of Tennessee.

I mean he probably does? He's probably got a nicer house than me as well.

Did you read the article you posted where he concluded evopsych wasn't a pseudoscience? I'm not criticising him at all, he's actually supporting my point. I am beginning to suspect you didn't actually read it.

TWO doctorates in biology, but let's just dismiss any criticism he might have of EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY.

The use of caplocks is really helping get your point across.

Oh, I know, it wasn't a dismissal or a criticism when you responded to me with what was clearly a dismissal and criticism of that article.

I can't help you

Give me a fucking break

Gladly, you've been deeply unpleasant and our time is limited.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

I mean he probably does?

And yet you know more about evolutionary psychology than he does. Or at least enough to not bother actually reading what he has to say about it.

Also, your obvious sealioning is not fooling anyone.