RhombusHatesYou said:
That's my argument to the Nobel Prize Physics committee every year.
Watch out, I once got modded for a comment like that because, according the the Escapist, it's claiming...I forget the exact wording....Expertise you may not possess.
I would look up the specific complaint, but
I don't keep messages that far back YOU ARE TEH BIAS!
Jacco said:
Who's the one making unsubstantiated claims now?
Since you haven't substantiated your claims, still you. Also:
See, this is what I'm talking about. Whether I posted them or not, we'd still be having this argument.
That's an unsubstantiated claim. In fact:
I refuse to waste my time.
You've wasted more time arguing how you won't waste time than it would take to come up with all these numerous "scholarly articles" you've found.
You are welcome to believe what you want to believe but don't claim it as unequivocal fact.
I didn't. You're misrepresenting me. It's dishonest. My only "claim" was that it was interesting you would only consider another point of view with academic articles, but refused to justify your own claims with them. Meanwhile, other people have actually linked to scholarly articles, ones that actually demonstrate their point of view, which you refuse to acknowledge. Don't accuse others of closed-mindedness if you're going to play that game yourself.
If you are really so interested in this subject, you are welcome to search for my claims yourself.
Back up your own claims. Everything I've found looking into it has demonstrated that there are differences between the "male" and "female" brain. I have a scientific mind, though. I am more than willing to entertain research that demonstrates otherwise. However, you claim you have evidence of these claims, and I haven't found it. Since you are claiming "most research" is now showing that this isn't the case, it should be easy to demonstrate. Hell, BG's link should have shown some results early on. There should be all sorts of this stuff in medical and psych journals counteracting prior research. It should be a big deal in the trans community right now. There should be metastudies looking at the overall flow of information.
So prove it. It should be freaking easy to back up your claims.
But don't say you have proof and then pull the "we're done here" card when challenged.
BloatedGuppy's link was a Google search result for a specific confirming term he put in. Hardly "providing scholarly articles."
Google Scholar, which provided multiple hits for articles defending the exact subject in question. Did you even look beyond the URL? Because it might behoove you to know what you're talking about first.
Honey, we were done before it was started. Just admit you didn't have such information and were hoping it'd go unchallenged.
Rosiv said:
Its a REAL hypocritical thing to denounce someone for claiming fact, when you wont even prove your own.
Especially since I never pushed any claim as "fact" towards him. Well, except for the fact that he was asking for scholarly articles and not providing any of his own. That sort of is a fact. but I wasn't claiming any unequivocal fact regarding the science here. I can only go off what I know, and what I know about the matter dictates that yes, men and women have different wiring on some level. I didn't even make that claim to him that I can recall, however. I simply noted, in different terms but to a similar gist of what you said:
When you state something so absolutely, like a fact, the onus falls on you to provide the source, unless you denote it as your opinion.
Specifically, he claims all this research is now demonstrating his point of view, so he should damn well be able to provide the research.
Hell, I would expect he could find some, period. Even just a few, if he wanted to hunt them down. Scientific journals don't generally censor. You can evidently find papers denouncing global warming in reputed scientific journals. In its academic publications (not the same thing, I know), the APA published a study whose overall conclusion was having sex with children (to paraphrase) wasn't all that bad for the kids. I half-expect if I looked hard enough, I'd find something. There are a few in the search results BG linked to wich sort of fit if you look sideways and squint....
Of course, that still wouldn't back up his claim, given it was a claim that most of the research was saying there are not the differences claimed. That would require an even steeper level of proof.
"Fact" is a tricky thing[footnote] In science, we routinely deal with thing as is the best evidence possible, so I try and steer away from absolute certainties anyway[/footnote], but the science I've seen is fairly persuasive, and apparently the one guy holding on to the truth won't share it. Alas, such information appears lost to the ages. >.>
(BTW, not really aimed at you or anything, just a sidelong ramble because I'm currently fighting the urge to do something constructive. >.>)