I would think you should have some explanation for the fact that a good percentage of experts in the field disagree with something you claim is open and shut.
This seems like willful stupidity to me, at this point. This is a good example of what I consider ignorance and dishonesty coming mostly from your side.
Nothing Chief Pedant has said in any of these debates comes remotely close to this.
But maybe I’m wrong. Answer this directly please: Is it really your impression that the position you are disputing is that “most of the difference in test scores is due to genetic factors”? And that your claims about no evidence are not directed at claims that “some of the difference in test scores is due to genetic factors”?
Where have I said this is an open and shut case? I’ve said multiple times that I think that the specific causes of the test score gap remain pretty open questions.
Then I think you still don’t understand “my side”, or at least my own arguments.
You don’t think CP has said that the evidence suggests that the best explanation for the test score gap is genes? If so, I think you’re wrong.
I dispute that the data suggests this, yes. I dispute that there is data/evidence that suggests that the best explanation for the test score gap is inferior genes for intelligence among black people.
My claims about no evidence are directed at the claims that “the best explanation for the test score gap is inferior genes for intelligence among black people”. Putting it another way: I also refute that there is any data/evidence that points to this explanation over all other explanations. Further, there is data/evidence that points against this explanation, like the Scarr (et al) study.
And the reason you insist on using the term “best explanation” is because it allows you to pretend that the “racial” side of the argument is that there is only one explanation which accounts for all the disparity, without you actually making that claim outright (since you know it’s untrue that this is their position and your claim would be easily rebutted).
Does not speak well of you or your position.
As I said, nothing Chief Pedant has said comes remotely close to this.
What you’ve said is open and shut is that you’ve said there is zero evidence of a genetic factor. So you should account for experts, whose opinions are ostensibly based on or at least informed by, evidence, giving weight to that position.
Show a chain of posts in which I’m being dishonest.
No, I’m using “best explanation” as it would be commonly understood. For example, what’s the “best explanation” that X number of people are sweating? The best explanation is probably that it’s hot. But there are probably other explanations – exercise, spicy foods, etc.
I think I’ve been pretty clear throughout – I don’t believe there is a single shred of evidence that points to “black people have inferior genes for intelligence” as the best explanation (i.e. the most likely explanation that better explains things then all the other possible explanations) for the test score gap. Further, I believe that there is data and evidence, like the Scarr et al study, that directly counters this explanation and would put other explanations as more likely (i.e. “better”) than this one.
Since you’re incorrect about how/why I’ve been using “best explanation”, you’re incorrect about this.
Yes, it’s “open and shut” that there is zero evidence that points to genes as the best explanation. And there is evidence that points against genes as the best explanation (or even as any part of the explanation at all).
As to the experts, I’d have to hear their justification for why they believe genes might be involved, even to some small degree. Maybe that have data that CP doesn’t, like an updated study that attempts to correlate degree of African admixture among self-identified black people with test scores.
You’re playing games, considering that you’ve failed to back up your accusations against me. Your interpretation of my ‘misstatements’ (as well as your understanding of my entire argument) has been consistently wrong, and you’ve consistently declined to back them up when I’ve challenged you.
It’s possible that I’ve made my arguments poorly. But so far, you’re all alone here in your criticisms. I’m not going to just take your word for it, especially considering that you’ve declined to address my challenges to your criticisms.
Considering we’re talking about the survey answers of anonymous ‘experts’ who have had no opportunity to back up their opinions, it doesn’t seem to have much at all to do with my claims (or the claims of anyone else on this topic).
I’ve explained enough. The fact that you’re ignoring something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
The only one who “declined to address” anything is you, who refused to answer a simple and direct question in post #741, in favor of just repeating your jive about “best explanation”.
Let me guess, Pickering, right? The guy who completely ignores the alternate explanation that Ethiopia has a high percentage of “West Eurasian” genes because Ethiopia is the Urheimat for those genes (which is certainly supported by the linguistic evidence for the Horn being the AfroAsiatic language group Urheimat too). That the Ethiopian population is the source, not the receiver of those genes. And hence it’s not Ethiopian “whiteness”, but Eurasian négritude, that is evidenced by the genes.
Interesting how you demand iiandyiiii explain the motivations of the scientists when you won’t even take a stab at the motivations of CP and crew.
This after you called me dishonest because I think racism is really prevalent. Or maybe it’s because I don’t think racism is really prevalent. Figuring out your point is a bit on the tricky side since you make shit up as you go along.
There’s your problem right there. You keep on with this straw man of “best explanation”. Since you feel the need to do so—repeatedly—it does seem that you would, in fact, agree that there is evidence that genes are the, or a, determinant. Correct?
Granted, the evidence may not point to genes being the “best explanation”, but that doesn’t mean that they might provide an explanation. And, possibly, in time, met provide the best explanation. Mind you, I’m not of the opinion that there is even a genetic difference when it comes to intelligence between races. Bu the possibility does exist. And there is evidence for it. Even if it does not rise to the level of “best explanation”.
I’m not sure what your point is- things like temperature, precipitation, etc. vary along clines too, but we can still talk about ‘rain forest environemnts’, ‘monsoon forest environments’, ‘boreal forest’ etc. even though there often no sharp lines between them.