Re: whale brains

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Benjamin H. Diebold: "Re: god makes hubey"
• Previous message: Hogan Michael Sherrow: "Re: reproductive strategi"
• Maybe in reply to: Alex Duncan: "whale brains"
• Next in thread: H. M. Hubey: "Re: whale brains"

Your reply is wholly inadequate, and insulting.

You have not at all explained away your cooked results, and you have
compounded the problem by making various incorrect or ill-formed
assumptions about the testability of intelligence. In fact, you have yet
to even define the problem. What is intelligence? What are you measuring?
How will you measure it? Why do you design your tests knowing ahead of time
what the comparative results are?

Frankly, I'm a little reassured that you accuse me of bad science. I
think I would be a lot more worried if you thought my view of science was
anything like what you have expressed in your last few posts.

You may be a decent problem solver (though I have no evidence for this), but
you are a truly lousy scientist.

I consider this thread totally played out, until you can directly and
succintly answer the questions above. I will ignore baits, flames, and
handwaving.

Ben

• Next message: Benjamin H. Diebold: "Re: god makes hubey"
• Previous message: Hogan Michael Sherrow: "Re: reproductive strategi"
• Maybe in reply to: Alex Duncan: "whale brains"
• Next in thread: H. M. Hubey: "Re: whale brains"