Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things
Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things
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're viewing part of a thread.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.