>His main point is far less interesting than the points I outlined.
To me, it seems like you aren't able to respond to his claim (suppression of views at Google), therefore you won't do so.
>It's like phrenology all over again
Comparing modern science to phrenology is a false equivalence, because phrenology was invented 200 years ago before the implementation of established scientific protocols, statistical sample sizes, and significance testing, peer review before publishing. The same issue applies to psychoanalysis, it's not backed up by statistics.
>He's using statistics an research as a tool for making excuses for the current situation.
The glaring problem with your view is that these scientific studies:
* Are performed using well established scientific methods
* Have very large (N>500,000) sample sizes
* Meet the standard for statistically significant by orders of magnitude
* Were subject to peer review
* Passed peer review and were published in reputable scientific journals
* Are replicated in other studies done by independent scientists using their own sets of data
I.e. they're well done and follow the modern science method, the same methodology we use to find drugs that cure diseases or report the discovery of new atomic particles. It's extremely well established, and agreed upon by tens of thousands of scientists. And if you do read the scientific papers, they do strongly support the conclusions of sex-based differences in the brain.
His position is backed by science. Yours is not, and you now you have resorted to claiming the science is irrelevant. It's very sad to see educated people make science-denial claims like yours.
Comparing to phrenology is completely appropriate. Phrenology was used to justify certain ideology. You don't think in 100 years the standards won't improve and we won't laugh at people who used this research to justify certain ideological views? His logic is flawed because he has a fixed mindset, which I believe is a logical dead end with little evidence to back it up. He is on the wrong side of history, and I make that opinion strongly.
200-year-old research on phrenology was supported by dozens of data points. Today's research on cognitive sex-differences is supported by billions of data points.
>little [sic] evidence to back it up
And where is the evidence you've brought up that disproves the current scientific consensus? That is, where is your evidence disproving our massive trove of data showing cognitive differences between men and women?
His position is backed by evidence from thousands of scientific studies performed over the past century. Yours is not.
>[something about you predicting the future]
Now you've dropped below rational discourse and resorted to name calling. Do you see how trivial it is to turn your own argument against you?
You don't think in 100 years we won't laugh at people like you who ignore reality to justify certain ideological views? Your logic is flawed because you have a fixed mindset, which I believe is a logical dead end with little evidence to back it up. You are on the wrong side of history, and I make that opinion strongly.
I doubt the scientists would back his position. It's a gross misunderstanding of their research. He takes the research and jumps a huge gap to get to his conclusion.
>I doubt the scientists would back his position. It's a gross misunderstanding of their research. He takes the research and jumps a huge gap to get to his conclusion.
And what might his conclusion be? You don't even bother stating what his conclusion is. You don't even bother providing evidence as to why it is a "gross misunderstanding" of research.
To me, it seems like you aren't able to respond to his claim (suppression of views at Google), therefore you won't do so.
>It's like phrenology all over again
Comparing modern science to phrenology is a false equivalence, because phrenology was invented 200 years ago before the implementation of established scientific protocols, statistical sample sizes, and significance testing, peer review before publishing. The same issue applies to psychoanalysis, it's not backed up by statistics.
>He's using statistics an research as a tool for making excuses for the current situation.
The glaring problem with your view is that these scientific studies:
* Are performed using well established scientific methods
* Have very large (N>500,000) sample sizes
* Meet the standard for statistically significant by orders of magnitude
* Were subject to peer review
* Passed peer review and were published in reputable scientific journals
* Are replicated in other studies done by independent scientists using their own sets of data
I.e. they're well done and follow the modern science method, the same methodology we use to find drugs that cure diseases or report the discovery of new atomic particles. It's extremely well established, and agreed upon by tens of thousands of scientists. And if you do read the scientific papers, they do strongly support the conclusions of sex-based differences in the brain.
His position is backed by science. Yours is not, and you now you have resorted to claiming the science is irrelevant. It's very sad to see educated people make science-denial claims like yours.