elstoof wrote:Feel free to find a better definition for the term genetic determinism. Or define it with your own words, your own understanding of it. Then somebody can argue about it.
And the point was that the wikipedia article links to studies on the bottom of the article, whether they are credible or not is depending on your judgement. They obviously got published, what criteria else you choose for credible is up to you. Which authority is credible and which is not, you'll have to decide.
This is tedious, let me make this brief.
It's very simple.
If someone likes the sound of something, if it is comforting and so on and even if there is only a small probability that it is actually the case then still it must be true, or it should be assumed that it's true. And if it is not true now then it will most certainly be true in the future.
And if people don't like it. If it's uncomfortable and not everybody is going to heaven, which is now known as living happily ever after, then, even if there is lots and lots of evidence for it, it's still false. To be precise, it cannot be prove beyond a doubt today and if it can't be proven beyond a doubt then it's basically random noise, not important. And even if it is maybe true today, sometimes, then it most certainly will stop being true in the better future.
Do you want it to be true or not? That's the question. Of course this only works with shared dreams. Together we can make it true, eventually. That's the idea of progress.
The mind shapes reality. And actually, within human constructs, the human hive mind, that's true.
#10147648, By Dangerous_Dan Sochi games: are we right to criticise Russia for non-games related subjects?
Dangerous_Dan 2,378 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 4 years ago