Ah, an admission. Of course it's not an absolute. Whoever said it was?
admission? really? are you illiterate or are you being
intentionally stupid?
or is this some baiting style post for your delusional persecution complex where you assign anyone who challenges your claims about science to being conservative or communist?
i clearly stated in my first post... and let me quote it for you:
for starters, science, though it has determined that "
Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's", this is also a singular study and it's not necessarily accurate for everyone, let alone all conservatives and or liberals.
perhaps you missed that being illiterate and all?
You are trying to split hairs here. The fact is the studies found "conservatives" and "liberals" process information differently. "Conservatives" use the more primitive an primal aspects of the brain. "Liberals use more of the cerebral cortex to process information.
1- science is about being factual, so it's about clearing up fallacious points you make
take what i quoted above from your post.
2- you can claim that they process information differently because it's true, however, you can't claim the following without some evidenciary support, like a few studies that demonstrate this
"Conservatives" use the more primitive an primal aspects of the brain. "Liberals use more of the cerebral cortex to process information
so what you're doing is making an ASSumption about the science that is likely based upon someone else's ASSumption about the science
where is the study that states this claim?
where is this "science" you are clinging to that demonstrates your point?
show me these "differences in brain structure" so we can all see this for ourselves and make a decision based upon actual science and not your interpretations of what you thought you may have read somewhere in some journal you think... after all, that is a measurable thing that can be demonstrated, much like the differences in brain structures in PTSD affected patients
I'm sure those who finance the "conservative" are a lot better at processing information than those they finance and lead.
wouldn't that be considered conspiracist ideation? why, that would make
YOU conservative, right? LOL
As I previously pointed out, that's totally pointless in regards to this discussion. Per previous references, scientist can correctly determine a person's ideological preferences 83% of the time just by looking at their brain structures.
no, it is
not pointless when you're making the argument that "science says so"
much like you just claimed there is differences in brain structures and scientists can make accurate determinations about structure alone ....
when the basis of your argument is science, but you can't produce said science to back up your claims (like your above brain structures and predictions) then it most assuredly is a relevant argument to make a point about the science and your interpretations of said science
links or
STFU and quit being a troll about it
And I have asked you for evidence of cherry picking, and thus far you haven't provided it.
you mean besides pointing out that you're selecting partial information from a study while refusing to address any other refute provided, like the references i gave?
so you know: just because your political web site says it's science doesn't mean it is science
Whereas you have used a straw man among other logical fallacies.
strawman?
i made a clear, concise argument that your claims of your belief being "science" was not science
i have been and will stick to that argument because:
1- it was my original point and argument, which you've yet to actually provide refute for
and
2- you have yet to provide any source material proving your argument is scientific, let alone the rest of your BS claims about structures and predictions
not one single link or specific reference (and saying "scientific american" and "journals" is not the same thing as providing a reference or link that can be searched for)
You can call yourself whatever you will. It's your right. But your actions speak volumes.
my actions are that of someone who is scientifically literate wanting you to actually produce evidence to support your claims about something being scientific
they have from the beginning, and you have yet to be able to provide even a single reference or link to support your claims to me
so lets look at
your demonstrations:
you said it was science, whereas i proved it wasn't
you stated you were "merely pointing out the truth while [Dr. Toad] mindlessly and unquestioningly support the narcissist-in-chief in the White House" when i've never known Dr. Toad to ever have a nice thing to say about the idiot POTUS trump
you claimed "I showed you the articles in the Scientific American and Psychology Today" but the only links or references provided in the discourse between us have all come from me, not you. you still haven't provided any links or references to me about your claims, nor have you provided
any evidence at all whatsoever other than your personal belief and denigration of all those who refute your points.
you have continued to attempt to change the discourse from your faux pas regarding science to my being "conservative" per your belief, or to logical arguments, or to admissions of something that you clearly don't understand because you can't read, or....
you have cherry picked specific data from a study (which i pointed out in my
first post) - and you've made false claims and attempted to make pseudoscience claims based upon your belief and interpretation which i've tried to correct (see above and first post) and because i've corrected you, i am "comrade" or "conservative" instead of being scientifically literate
you've claimed that i've not provided evidence when it's clearly posted
( i don't understand why you're continuing to make that false claim... brings to mind the following: you can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think.)
so your
demonstration between us must mean you're obviously lying and can't produce evidence, right?
does this mean we simply report any further posts without evidence?
