/lit/ - Literature

>>14737460
>citation needed

>>14710801
>OK but there's actual sources and statistics in the article.
A compelling case for the midwit.

>>14446203
Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered. You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field? A college degree? In that field? Then your arguments are invalid. No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered. You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field? A college degree? In that field? Then your arguments are invalid. No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

Astonished that article is written by two men. I wonder how old they are and if they have the "gay voice." You know the one I mean? Bald men with goatees always look like faggots too. Tons of those in academia. Like pic related, here.

Anyway, I expected that article to be written by a woman suction-cupping her way up the sheer wall of philosophy with her vagina, since women can't do philosophy and are barred entry except on the basis of vaginal ascent.

>>13648886
>Both disproved by science

>>13645368
>The science tells us

>prove it

>>13534282
This is what a midwit does and pretends this useless knowledge makes him "smart".

>>13507558
>empirically unproven

>>13498750
>Citation needed

>>13493931
>Literally "inconclusive"
>"correlation not causation"

>>13481048
>But you can't post sources from the late 19th century and expect well read educated people to take you seriously.

>>13454535
>However, Plato, Aristotle and Kant just weren't as smart as Yudkowsky believes himself to be.

Exactly, dude. By the way, shout-out. I fucking love Dennet and Harris.

>>13411388
t. bugman

>>13406333
You're the one who raised criticism which you failed to substantiate. You used meme words like a redditor does with scientific topics. You lost.

>>13381450
>this much bro science
>appealing to authority
>muh I'm to stupid to understand technical terms, so why don't you dumb it down for me, they sound scary so uuhhh propaganda
>muh propaganda

>>13375245
Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered. You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field? A college degree? In that field? Then your arguments are invalid. No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

Unironically, To Kill a Mockingbird

>>13372959
SOOOOO BAAAASED BROOO

>>13372984
Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered. You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field? A college degree? In that field? Then your arguments are invalid. No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

I don't even need to look into the articles to know that the sample population isn't enough to be statistically representative and that the validity of the study is unexistent as 90% of psychology and neurology experiments. Therefore, my absence of evidence is superior to your evidence.

>>13372455
>Are you seriously expecting me to read catholic dogma ? You're mistaken, I have much better things to do in my life.

You can't really believe hell is eternal do you? It's an immoral belief and if you adhere to it, you are, without question, a sociopath.