top | item 43006253 (no title) frigidwalnut | 1 year ago The data are public! Why don't you show it? discuss order hn newest aeneasmackenzie|1 year ago This was old news decades ago[0] but people don’t want to hear it.0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intell... an editorial written to tell the public that this is not some shocking, fringe claim. You can follow links from the page for the full text. frigidwalnut|1 year ago Thanks for that link. The Wikipedia article you referenced says "This view is now considered discredited by mainstream science."There are still papers being written about how those analyses were flawed: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2319496121
aeneasmackenzie|1 year ago This was old news decades ago[0] but people don’t want to hear it.0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intell... an editorial written to tell the public that this is not some shocking, fringe claim. You can follow links from the page for the full text. frigidwalnut|1 year ago Thanks for that link. The Wikipedia article you referenced says "This view is now considered discredited by mainstream science."There are still papers being written about how those analyses were flawed: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2319496121
frigidwalnut|1 year ago Thanks for that link. The Wikipedia article you referenced says "This view is now considered discredited by mainstream science."There are still papers being written about how those analyses were flawed: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2319496121
aeneasmackenzie|1 year ago
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intell... an editorial written to tell the public that this is not some shocking, fringe claim. You can follow links from the page for the full text.
frigidwalnut|1 year ago
There are still papers being written about how those analyses were flawed: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2319496121