You literally set up a sham argument to be easily knocked down by yourself with a scholarly 'LOL'. An argument, in which I never even hinted at supporting, by the way. And then, your reply is to make a wisecrack about "ignoring reality"? What reality am I ignoring? Are we talking quarks and neutrinos or history or what?
I don't see anywhere in this thread where I have said anything especially controversial. Perhaps, it was because I hinted at my suspicion of some 'fringe' elements of the social sciences - I see that your academic background is in psychology; perhaps that offended you, which would explain why you have resorted to logical fallacies and one liners.
I don't see anywhere in this thread where I have said anything especially controversial. Perhaps, it was because I hinted at my suspicion of some 'fringe' elements of the social sciences - I see that your academic background is in psychology; perhaps that offended you, which would explain why you have resorted to logical fallacies and one liners.
![[-]](https://www.degreeforum.net/mybb/images/collapse.png)