Whenever this book comes up there are comments about it being debunked and Pinker cherry-picking sources, but I have yet to find a serious scholarly critique.
I would seriously love to read a view from, say, a professional historian as to pinker's methods.
If anyone knows a good non-wingnut counterpoint please tell.
Whenever this book comes up there are comments about it being debunked and Pinker cherry-picking sources, but I have yet to find a serious scholarly critique.
I would seriously love to read a view from, say, a professional historian as to pinker's methods.
If anyone knows a good non-wingnut counterpoint please tell.