That comment of yours is, I'm sorry to say, hardly better than a statement in favour of motherhood and apple pie -- vague statements are pretty much useless, if not worse than useless.
Even in the case of the sexes, too many so-called biologists and philosophers don't know whether they're on f…
That comment of yours is, I'm sorry to say, hardly better than a statement in favour of motherhood and apple pie -- vague statements are pretty much useless, if not worse than useless.
Even in the case of the sexes, too many so-called biologists and philosophers don't know whether they're on foot or horseback -- see Griffiths' essay for details -- and are peddling idiosyncratic definitions which conflict profoundly with the more solidly justified ones of mainstream biology.
You might actually try reading and thinking about the specifics, about the devils in the details. See my:
Sure. But WHICH properties for WHICH category?
That comment of yours is, I'm sorry to say, hardly better than a statement in favour of motherhood and apple pie -- vague statements are pretty much useless, if not worse than useless.
Even in the case of the sexes, too many so-called biologists and philosophers don't know whether they're on foot or horseback -- see Griffiths' essay for details -- and are peddling idiosyncratic definitions which conflict profoundly with the more solidly justified ones of mainstream biology.
You might actually try reading and thinking about the specifics, about the devils in the details. See my:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists