Do you understand what those words mean? (Reply #8)

In the discussion thread: An example of junk science re: objectification. [View all]

Thu Jul 26, 2012, 04:13 PM

redqueen (112,669 posts)

8. Do you understand what those words mean?

Are you under the impression that anything published in a peer reviewed journal is therefore an unquestionable, established, scientific fact and that's that?

Is that what you think? That everything ever published in any peer reviewed journal has always proven 100% correct?

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

35 replies	Author	Time	Post
An example of junk science re: objectification. [View all]	redqueen	Jul 2012	OP
Science, no, ideology yes.	hifiguy	Jul 2012	#1
Uh, yeah... I can read, thanks.	redqueen	Jul 2012	#5
Peer-reviewed science is what it is.	hifiguy	Jul 2012	#6
Do you understand what those words mean?	redqueen	Jul 2012	#8
I certainly do.	hifiguy	Jul 2012	#10
Her methodology is sound I'm sure.	redqueen	Jul 2012	#12
There is no abusive language and the parallel is appropriate.	hifiguy	Jul 2012	#17
" you sound like a climate-change denier?"" I am being thoroughly civil here." ah, no.	seabeyond	Jul 2012	#14
do you have the fainist idea how much you sound like an evo babbler???	seabeyond	Jul 2012	#9
The one and ONLY pont I made in post #1	hifiguy	Jul 2012	#13
you have made it clear since it made "peer-reviewed academic journal" it is valid.	seabeyond	Jul 2012	#15
Your statement is faith-based	hifiguy	Jul 2012	#18
you would be wrong, but dont let that stop you. nt	seabeyond	Jul 2012	#19
How do you infer Evo?	One_Life_To_Give	Jul 2012	#2
This part:	redqueen	Jul 2012	#3
totally amazing tying evo babble to this when from the day girls and boys are born they are taught	seabeyond	Jul 2012	#11
Actually it is not hard to imagine an experiment	hifiguy	Jul 2012	#22
there is plenty of documentation that challenges this. you obviously did not read any of it. to me,	seabeyond	Jul 2012	#23
Actually, I read that link, and most of the comments.	hifiguy	Jul 2012	#24
unilaterally attack Evolutionary Psychology is to deny that there is any part of human behaviour	seabeyond	Jul 2012	#25
Jeezus.	hifiguy	Jul 2012	#26
i can say the same right back at you. so why bother? i have no desire to converse with a person	seabeyond	Jul 2012	#27
I "throw out insults"	hifiguy	Jul 2012	#34
I am also having trouble seeing any assertion about natural behavior or evo-psych	MadrasT	Jul 2012	#4
In addition to the comment quoted in post three, there's this...	redqueen	Jul 2012	#7
Ahhhhhhhhh	MadrasT	Jul 2012	#35
evo babble dismisses all of history for the first moment in time. they ignore conditioning, nurture,	seabeyond	Jul 2012	#16
Explain this:	pscot	Jul 2012	#28
see... this is exactly the crap i am talking about. you define it thru this period of time	seabeyond	Jul 2012	#29
Peer reviewed it may be	ismnotwasm	Jul 2012	#20
there are many explanations about the issues with evo psych. here are 6 major, not even the minor	seabeyond	Jul 2012	#21
Like clockwork...	redqueen	Jul 2012	#30
this would be a never ending process we do with women. but hell, lets not consider	seabeyond	Jul 2012	#31
I guess that writer at iO9 had no problem seizing onto the evo psych angle.	redqueen	Jul 2012	#32
"the media is probably a prime suspect."	seabeyond	Jul 2012	#33

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.