News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Writing and the narrative fallacy (2018) by jessriedel on Sunday May 24, 2020 @03:15PM (#23293868)
Aspects of human beings that are widely present in people all over the world, and are therefore likely resistant to effective removal using known practical tools, is generally considered reasonable (but not incontrovertible) evidence for biological inclination. It is not necessary to have linked this to a particular gene, and doesn't cease to be "biological" if it involves gene-environment interactions. It was correct to say that most plants were biologically inclined to use the sun's energy before photosynthesis and DNA were understood.
Re:Writing and the narrative fallacy (2018) by bryanrasmussen on Sunday May 24, 2020 @03:26PM (#23293943)
sure, a big enough psychological study without any obvious flaws might sufficiently bridge the inductive gap for me. But I'm unaware of any, and I doubt to see one because it would be real difficult to get right. That said I haven't really looked for one, for the reasons given.
Re:Writing and the narrative fallacy (2018) by jessriedel on Sunday May 24, 2020 @04:52PM (#23294599)
There's lots of biological knowledge we have that existed before formal studies. What I said about photosynthesis applies to claims by non-scientists observing plants informally.