What you see with your own eyes vs what scientists claim

Many years ago, I was attending an undergraduate psychology class. During the class, a gunman broke in, and held up the professor. A couple of shots were fired.The professor asked the class to write reports on the event, so that he would have good eyewitness reports.The actual robbery was actually a staged event, though the class did not know that at the time. What it brought out very clearly, was the unreliability of eyewitness accounts. There was very little consistency between the various accounts given.

---

Let's end the political smears

A lot of what the public sees is coming from journalists, and their interpretation of the science. And the journalists don't always understand what they are reporting.

---

Let's end the political smears

To me, this all seems to be much ado about nothing.Personally, I would count as innate those behaviors that are present at birth or that are developmental consequences of what is present at birth. Behaviors that are a consequence of birth defects would therefore be counted as innate, as I use the term. However, a birth defect can have non-genetic causes, so such innate behaviors need not be carried by the genes. Whether or one would say they evolved becomes a question on how broadly one uses the term evolution. Does one consider susceptibility to thalidomide to be evolved, or not? I can't say that I really care one way or the other.The impression I get from reading this dialog, is that you are trying to trap Modulous into making a strong claim so that you can then spring a counter example. If you want productive dialog on whether "innate/learned" is a valid dichotomy, I would have thought it better for you to give your counter example early in the discussion.

---

Let's end the political smears

I'm not at all sure that is correct. After all, he does have a topic on spider intelligence, and it seems to me that he is arguing there for the ability of the spider to learn.

---

Let's end the political smears