I am continually disappointed at people who use the summary of a scientific article to prop up their justification, along with what I call "the world is a binary logic puzzle" fallacy.
For example, a lot of arguments positioned nature vs nurture. It's not a simplistic blend of this or that, or even as simple as "trait X is DNA and trait Y is societal" -- if you learned anything about biology the sheer adaptability of the human body should be it.
Don't forget that every single study hypothesizes a model, then attempts to build evidence in support of it. All models are wrong, some are occasionally useful.
I've been extremely disappointed in the 'bay area rationalist' community with their response to that memo. It's really given me an eye opening view on the limitations of so-called "rationality" as they practiced it.
I am continually disappointed at people who use the summary of a scientific article to prop up their justification, along with what I call "the world is a binary logic puzzle" fallacy.
For example, a lot of arguments positioned nature vs nurture. It's not a simplistic blend of this or that, or even as simple as "trait X is DNA and trait Y is societal" -- if you learned anything about biology the sheer adaptability of the human body should be it.
Don't forget that every single study hypothesizes a model, then attempts to build evidence in support of it. All models are wrong, some are occasionally useful.
I've been extremely disappointed in the 'bay area rationalist' community with their response to that memo. It's really given me an eye opening view on the limitations of so-called "rationality" as they practiced it.