| >> Yes, and it is not science. > Strawman. You need to look up the term "straw man." My mentioning that the source you quote is not science is not a straw man, because that's the topic under discussion. > Your understanding of human behaviour is facile. Straw man. The topic of discussion is not human behavior, but whether or not psychology is a science. Or have you forgotten? > There is not stronger form of argument, please don't pretend to lecture. To someone who doesn't understand science, but who presumes to pontificate on the topic? One who thinks a philosophy textbook is science? > The fact that you think Academics hold a superior position to actual killers What the fuck are you taking about? You locate where I ever said or implied this, anywhere, and do it now. I happen to hold the opposite view, but very clearly, evidence is not a matter of concern to you. > The author of that book is one of the most knowledgeable people on the planet on that subject. And Hemingway is an authority on bullfighting -- but that doesn't make his books scientific. Honest to God. I give up -- your ignorance is too profound. |
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about
> That about sums it up. Also, its clear you haven't read the source material you reference (ie, the source not the summary).
You'd be surprised about what people know. And what goes on behind closed doors.
Not sure where you get your expertise from...
I hope its not just playing video games/.