Thanks. I just kind of skimmed the whole thread. 25 pages you know.
The “race realist” argument is as follows:
[ul]
[li]Black people are a ‘race’[/li][li]Black people score lower on tests than white people[/li][li]The reason for the lower scores is that the black race is genetically predisposed to low intelligence [/li][/ul]
Note that the third point requires the first point to be true.
The counterargument is:
[ul]
[li]“Black” isn’t a race[/li][li]There are socioeconomic factors for the lower test scores[/li][/ul]
The scientific consensus is that black isn’t a race. **CP **and others like to argue otherwise, but a lot of their cites have explicit disclaimers from the authors saying that the results shouldn’t be interpreted in the way **CP **interprets them.
The scientific consensus on whether socioeconomic factors can explain the test score gap is mixed, but seems to be moving toward the conclusion that socioeconomic factors can explain the entire test gap. The papers that **GIGObuster **has quoted explicitly state that if you pick the right set of socioeconomic factors you can explain the entire test gap.
In addition, explicit tests of whether there’s a race component to intelligence have been uniformly negative.
So, the argument basically boils down to **CP **and others harping on the second of the three points, ignoring recent papers, and providing cites that don’t say what they claim the papers say.
Thanks for the condensed version.
One thing I do agree with CP on is any scientist or professional to take his view would be career suicide.
You cite the very reason that there have been calls to set aside emotion. You then seem to imply that that very request is unreasonable because, well, the issue is so emotionally charged. Which leads us right back to, a call to set aside emotion. I think it absurd that one cannot be asked to argue a specific point without the emotional baggage. Though some in this thread do seem absolutely unable to do just that.
Why is the bar set at “proof”? People seem to insist on that threshold because of the very thing that gets in the way of the rest of the debate: emotion. Your phrase above, “extraordinary proof” shows that you grossly conflate proof with evidence.
Except that a few scientists have taken that position, and it didn’t hurt their careers. A few actually made a lot of money off it, and some think tanks exist to fund scientists who are willing to consider the idea.
As a matter of fact, one of the best papers on the role of race in intelligence was funded by the Pioneer fund. The study concluded that there was no role in race in intelligence and the Pioneer fund never funded any more of those sorts of studies.
What? Why ever not?
What you might ‘think’ is beside the point: the facts are that most personality traits have a large genetic component, typically larger than anything that might be attributable to 'parenting;.
We’ve made both unemotional and emotional arguments. Either can be appropriate at different times and circumstances.
No, you have not. And when it comes to science, emotionalism gets in the way of science. The only answer that isn’t dripping with “oh, no, it cannot, must most be true because it would be Jim Crow/slavery/lynchings!” is the “well, scientifically, there’s no such thing as race”, which FP and CP have both explained is akin to putting one’s head in the sand.
Well that settles it.
I think that’s four different kinds of crap in one sentence. You’re like the Baskin-Robbins of bullshit!
This is a rather inaccurate interpretation of my arguments, since I’ve pretty clearly separated the moral judgments (which have nothing to do with an idea’s truthfulness) from the factual ones. I guess you’ve also missed the multiple posts discussing the evidence that specifically refutes genes as a cause of the test score gap.
So glad I could feed you then. Open wide.
Come on. Evidence refuting genes as a cause of the test score gap is just that—evidence. It works for your side of the debate, but it does not end the debate. It seems like orangeapples isn’t the only poster here confusing “evidence” with “proof”.
It’s also a non-emotional argument.
There’s evidence specifically refuting genes as a cause, but no evidence specifically promoting genes as a cause. It doesn’t end the debate, but it shows that it’s not reasonable at all to assert (as CP has) that black people have inferior genes for intelligence.
When I have said that there’s proof? You put an awful lot of words in my mouth… are you learning that from CP?
Accidental honesty at work, folks.
I’ll be the first to agree that personality is largely inherited. But I’d very much like to see the research that makes you assert so definitively that it is predominantly genetic in origin.
.
This argument has also been brought up - and shot down.
Humans are a single species. We have the same set of genes with individuals just having different combinations. Virtually every genetic trait is universal.
There are a handful of exceptions. Out of millions of genetic traits, there are maybe a dozen that are linked to what we call race. So the odds are literally a million to one against there being a genetic link between race and intelligence.
So the people who are claiming such a link exists are the ones who have the burden of proof. They have to produce the gene. And I’ll point out that they haven’t been able to find it in their attempts so far.
Until you produce some scientific evidence, believing there’s a gene for black stupidity belongs alongside believing there’s a gene for psychic powers.
Why the fuck should we? Emotions are to be celebrated, not put aside.
There’s this myth that Science is all about the Method*. This is bullcrap. Every A-rated scientist I’ve ever worked with was passionate about their subject, every last damn one.
Or properly Methods. There’s no such thing as The Scientific Method, and anyone who says so is an idiot.
Bullshit.
You seem to be implying that only one side of this divide has approached this emotionally. I think that absurd, and suggest you’ve overlooked an example or two earlier in this thread.
My point remains; this issue is fraught with a long history of oppression and abuse, and trying to wave that all away while attempting to operate under a dubious veneer of scientific endeavor is untoward. That is my opinion, don’t try to pin that on anyone else in this thread. That’s also untoward.
You’ll have to walk me through that one, I truly don’t get it. How does emotion move that goalpost exactly, and how does “extraordinary proof” in any way demonstrate that I’ve mixed-up or mashed-up or merged proof and evidence? Either I don’t know what conflate means, or you don’t.
No, it’s true. For example, if you’re emotionally compelled by the need to irritate liberals, you might conflate this racist nonsense with science. Then you might spend long stretches of time - years, even - arguing that it’s plausible when it fails in pretty much every conceivable way.