Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

You made the claim, put up or shut up. University and professor list.

Give us the list of papers you claim to have ("I have no problem pointing you to any of the papers I've read. I generally keep them on an organized folder on my computer. They're all highlighted."). 

Please email S Pinker with a request and post an image of his response (I'll wait the week).

I'm not giving you my university or professor list. I've been doxed by atheists in the past (never underestimate how crazy the internet can get). There's probably already enough information to do so anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter. 

As to the list of papers, is there a specific topic you're wanting to discuss? I have way too many for my own good. Here's a screenshot of some of the ones we had to read on a course about sensation and perception (which is relevant to this thread). Pardon the inconsistent titles, I'm still working on the most effective way to categorize papers. I sometimes don't even know where to put what. For example, attention is a topic of its own, but a lot of research is done through visual attention. So should that fall under perception or attention? Or do I make a copy and place them in both? So yeah, its under construction.



Here's a screenshot of one of the old emails Pinker sent me. Its worth noting I was maybe on my first or second year of college? So the questions I was asking aren't even that great (by my own standards today). But rather than ignore the email as "ignorant" he took the time address it and comment on it. Contrast that with your response earlier. 

But I was wrong lol. He responded within a day, not a week lol. So I take that back.