to show what I mean. See those words in the context of the sentences in which they occur, and it can be seen that you are not giving any evidence for your claims either.
Do your own research, if my comment is so important to you.
Also this is HN, a forum, not a court of law. Tons of other users on here, regularly and casually make comments which may seem false to others, without giving evidence for their statements.
>Notice that a charged label on a Wikipedia page is enough for you, a skeptical person, to make an absolute conclusion.
Don't try to mislead, by using words like "charged label". The conclusion is clearly made by the Wikipedia page, not by me. I merely quoted it. Anyone who doubts that can go read it first, before making "absolute conclusions".
>Notice that a charged label on a Wikipedia page is enough for you, a skeptical person, to make an absolute conclusion.
Notice what charged label on the page [1]? By common sense logic of conversation, if you considered that I was using a "charged label" (whatever the heck that means) in my argument, the onus was on you to, at a minimum, mention that label, which you clearly did not do, although I think I can guess which one you mean.
>If it’s so obviously false, can you share the landmark study or experiment that disproved it?
How about you first sharing "the landmark study or experiment" that proves it?
And I wonder if you read the whole article, seeing that the word "discredited" (referring to phrenology) appears at least 5 or 6 times in the article, in many cases with citations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology