Um, is no one going to call her on this daft suggestion? [ul]“I would say of course it’s possible that the earth is flat - just use your common sense.”
“I would say of course it’s possible that maggots are spontaneously generated by rotting meat - just use your common sense.”
“I would say of course it’s possible that the earth is flat - just use your common sense.”
etc.: plug in any long-held belief since disproved by science.[/ul]One could say, Autumn Wind Chick, that science is in the business of verifying the assumptions made due to “common sense”–sometimes it confirms those assumptions, and sometimes it disproves them. In any case, science trumps common sense every time.
By the context, it appears that you are using “a priori” as a synonym for common sense. Either way, your statement makes no kind of sense. One can (and should) distinguish the physical from the mental. They are two very different things and should not be assumed, as you have assumed, to have indistinguishable geneses, stimuli, or products.
Science is not “biased” against anything. Individual scientists are, of course, a different matter. The bias is quite obviously concentrated in the ascientific world: every time another scientist proves, scientifically, that race is a cultural construction that has no genetic meaning, the same bunch of ascientific blusters comes out in defense of common sense as the final arbiter of factuality.
but if I were an aspiring scholar, I would be reluctant to propose studying any ethnic or racial differences. Too much risk of offending someone who could damage your career. . . .**
[/QUOTE]
The only word that comes to mind here is “hooey.” Sure, if you’re working for a “conservative think tank” or for Pat Buchanan’s campaign organization, publishing scientific evidence against a scientific basis for racism might affect your employment future, but to say that a scientist working in a legitimate scientific, academic environment should avoid working with politically controversial hypotheses is the most ludicrous anti-scientific superstition: you’ve been watching too many B movies.
Again, this statement (which is just a slightly more hysterically framed redundancy of the rest of your post) betrays a narrow and hateful prejudice as “hell-bent” on self-deception as the non-existent bogey-scientist whose wild-haired, bony-clawed shadows apparently haunt your dreams.
Why such a rabid prejudice against scientists, Autumn Wind Chick, and why so “hell-bent” on clinging to your racist worldview in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary?
JH, no problem, I had the sense you were on the right page.
Well, even if we were not, I don’t want to exclude disagreements. I just desire for it to be based around the data. A few weeks ago Edwino and myself differed with someone in re this, but the fellow (sorry forgetting who) had an informed and interesting critique. I like that, its healthy.
Absolutely in the same place.
I agree once more.
Well, it’s something of an entirely seperate problem. I for one would not want biologists to touch that. I’m comfortable with having arrived at the observation that classical race is not a useful biological descriptor and having research refocused in more helpful, accurate ways.
But in re identify formation and group appartenance, I do think there is an interesting literature out there from two perspectives, pyschologists working on a more individual scale and the more rigourous portion of cultural anthro (I have serious issues with the very touchy feely part).
I would only differ or rather expand on the issue of race being ‘historically’ recognized by noting the classic race system is relatively new, i.e. since the 17th century of so. But other than this small clarification I agree.
Should we bemoan the lack of data on sexual organs world wide? :^) Okay, let us all start the SDMB fund for sexual organ research! Takers?
Oh yes, Lissener I figured AWC is one of those typical big mouths with nothing behind her wild statements since on two occasions she’s failed to respond or back up comments.
**
[/QUOTE]
It’s amazing to watch the mental gymnastics people will go through to justify their ridiculous beliefs.
And yes, I generally don’t respond to this sort of stuff.
It’s usually a waste of time to defend the obvious.
When people ask me “but where’s the EVIDENCE for the holocaust?” or “Tell me ONE study that shows smoking causes cancer” I respond by saying “ummm, whatever”
There’s enough evidence to satisfy any reasonable person that: smoking causes cancer, the holocaust happened, and racial differences exist.
Obviously, some people can’t or won’t accept these conclusions.
To them, I say that in every generation, people are often faced with choices between convenient lies and uncomfortable truths. I’ve made my choice, and you’ve made yours.
Did you even read my OP? This whole thread began with an article indicating the possibility that a certain group of people might have superior recall abilities relative to other groups. Thus AWC’s comment was not only common-sensical, it has some evidence behind it as well.
Since this is GD, I’ll challenge you to a debate. Here’s my opening statement, and my entire argument, all in one sentence:
Since the origin of the species Homo sapiens, groups inhabiting different geographic regions have undergone different evolutionary pressures, making it possible that those groups have developed differently both mentally and physically.
Now, let’s hear your reasons as to why it’s not even logical to entertain such an idea.
As far as scientific bias goes, once again: read my quotes; read the article. Hell, read Kuhn’s SSR if you think it’ll help.
Colounsbury and others have demonstrated (repeatedly) that there are few if any genetic differences between what are referred to as “races,” and it follows that there can be no superior/inferior races. This seems beyond dispute.
My question is: Could you create a distinct group of humans through a breeding program posessing characteristics generally considered as superior?
Ethical/moral issues aside, would a human breeding program for intelligence, disease resistance, longevity/other desirable traits, show positive results within a given time frame? (Arbitrarily assumed to be around 10 generations.)
Thanks.
Yes, especially when we have ** substantive ** scientific evidence to the contrary, * yes?*
Well, if one is informed one can in fact present the body of scientific evidence indicating that smoking is an undeniable risk factor for a variety of cancers. While it would be true to say there is not absolute proof of direct causation, at some point one achieves a level of confidence derived from a significant body of evidence and one draws conclusions.
Your argument from ignorance, while factually correct, is in fact scientifically indefensible. That’s ** your ** ignorance and not a scientific statement.
No, in fact there is NOT scientific evidence to indicate racial differences exist, ** contra ** your fact-free assertion. In fact, if you opened your closed mind and reviewed the ** original scientific literature **, based around basic genetic research which I, Edwino and others have both presented and laboriously explained here for all those ** who want to listen ** or who are capable of understanding, you will find your position is ** factually bankrupt **.
Instead, what you are doing is using rhetoric, poorly in fact since it is trivially simple to show that your tripart example is incorrect, rather the body of scientific evidence is that smoking is a major risk factor for cancer --causes it in layman’s language-- and human population differences do not break down by race.
Unless, perish the thought you have actual evidence? Or is it enough to assert there is such evidence? (My how familiar that is.) A kind word of advice, before I have to take your future statements, you might want to review past threads.
OBVIOUSLY! Yes, it is painfully obvious that some people are in fact incapable of such to the point that they make assertions which are so laughably easy to refute (i.e. see the large body of evidence already cited) that one wonders if the person making the assertion bothered even to pretend to consult the same.
Oh, I think it is stunningly clear what you have chosen, convient lies.
I have other comments for this kind of disingenious argument, based on what I call the rankest hypocrisy, however that would require a pit thread.
Ah yes, Testy
See the old thread on Eugenics for a discussion. Edwino in particular commented on the fallacious nature of most Eugenics programs. I doubt very much a Eugenics program could succeed at creating an across the board ubermensch group insofar genes are only part of the equation.
(In re intelligence, I believe it is too multivarient to significantly effect genetically in any arbitrary but culturally realistic time frame, other traits might be able to be effected over a long range, but again I think the problems are too much.)
As for Opus
The problem with your OP and your continued train of thought is the issue of (a) different evolutionary pressures and (b) trait flows. While local environments have clearly shaped specific trait frequency, at the same time human gene flow has been relativley high and sustained. As patterns of variation suggest, this means that truly advantageous, non-climate specific traits have propagated throughout the whole species fairly rapidly.
So, where does that leave us? Well, we know that (a) human variation does not in its vast majority break down by regional population, but is inter-individual. This is a non-trivial observation, but rather an important fact in understanding both our population history and also current distribution of traits. Further (b) we can observe that most traits mentioned in these discussions, e.g. memory, intelligence, eyesight show no obvious reasons to support a theory of significant regional variation insofar as barring a recent emmergence of some advantageous allele, better eyesight etc. is likely to have propagated like other traits throughout most if not all populations. Further, we have the issue of seperating observations about observed differences and genetic ones and the environment, which includes the whole range of possible effects from diet to cultural practices etc.
One of the errors people make in these discussions is to adopt a far too simplistic idea of the interaction between genetic heridity and the environment.
In any case, while specific environmentally induced population differences are not to be excluded, neither are they to be assumed based on facile, superficial observations. I see little to no reason to presume that there are fixed mental differences between any group of humans given our present knowledge – although I also believe that our present knowledge about brain function and the dynamics of that interaction with what we call intelligence makes it near impossible to adequately think about this issue.
In re scientific bias, I once more challenge you to respond to the publication record, not vague accusations made in the media. The actual record. It is clear from the actual record of publications that population differences are investigated. They are published and they are discussed. That is clear. A review of the literature cited already ** clearly ** shows that. Your weak-ass suggestion is based on the whinging by ** one ** person who claims his paper was rejected for such reasons. My experience is that in general papers are rejected for a range of reasons, poor research design and not having addressed obvious problems and objections prime among them. While there is surely some degree of biases among scientists, basic research on population differences clearly is not a problem. What might be a problem is drawing excessive conclusions from poor data or at least data which does not support your theory etc.
So, I suggest once more that until you have something more than a poorly written, researched and concieved newspaper article, that you have no genuine basis for suggesting that somehow population differences are being papered over. In fact, since you seem to be adverse to actually consulting the literature cited in previous discussions and helpfully gathered at the linked page in large part, it strikes me that you prefer to hold this a priori position over a considered investigation of whether your belief is empirically supported.
Opus, I must congratulate you on coming up with a clever question that demonstrates the folly of the “other side.”
Apparently, they won’t even concede that it’s POSSIBLE that their position is incorrect.
For my part, I am happy to concede that my position is possibly incorrect. And it wouldn’t take a scientific study to make me doubt my position - if an oriental were to win the gold medal in the 100m dash at the next olympics, I’d start thinking to myself “maybe I’m wrong after all.”
As William Poundstone pointed out, the surest sign of a crank theory is that it is not open to refutation.
Good Lord.
Have you been watching friends too much? Collunsbury isnt stupid. While nothing is impossible, what your claiming, AWC, is improbable. Learn the difference.
And sticking to your guns, especially when you have substantive scientific evidence backing your position, is a lot better than sticking to your guns while pissing into the wind.
I believe we now have the new Peace of the Board. Yes, Autumn Wind Chick fact free responses in these lines are right up there. We do have the intriguing new development of not directly responding to me, but given the content that’s not surprising. So, onto the meat of things, or perhaps the gruel might be better:
Folly? Oh that is rich indeed. I must say I have not seen such bald-faced twisting of reality since Peace old man.
It is always interesting to see political responses to scientific data (which I may remind everyone is available through the links.) And what has AWC brought to the table? Vague, hand-waving generalizations? “Common-sense” as she puts it so vapidly? Oh yes, argumentum ad hominem – all very convincing that “the other side” – funny we have this political language – is somehow wrong. Yet an iota of refutation on data, argument on science? Yet to be seen.
Primo: possible, not possible must be judged on data and confidence therein. I see nothing to concede insofar as I have presented a set of arguments which are both reasonable, based on data and contain acknowledge of the varying levels in confidence in the data and conclusions. In short, scientific --as much as one can get on a message board-- arguments.
I consider data, not political arguments, not hand-waving arguments based on mere ignorant imaginings (Oh I think…) or what not. Data.
Such whinging is rather reminiscent of “creation scientists” complaints in re evolution.
Ah the rhetoric of possibility, but it would be more convincing if you showed some slight sign of engaging the actual argument, the actual data. That scientific studies do not enter into your reasoning is rather obvious.
Maybe one should rather than concentrating on mere casual observation of which we all should be well aware of the various biases contained therein, you should consider, were it not too trying on your belief system, scientific data.
Oh, true it does tax the brain a bit more and it is more challenging than merely adopting a priori positions, but one does get factual conclusions, not mere prejudice out of it. (Or one should, at the very least the process contains in it mechanisms which in the end should allow for factually based conclusions to win out)
Of course, the fallacy of both “oriental” and depending on the vagaries of sports racing with all its independant variables to “prove” race and differential abilities have been pointed out many, many times before in painful detial on this board. While as a newbie you would not know that, however we do have the links and the threads mentioning sports and race. Rather than repeating all those arguments, I simply direct the readers to those threads.
Is it cruel to point out the delicious irony of this quotation?
I dearly hope that AWC is aware of the meaning of it.
I begin to wonder if her entire posting is not in fact a satire of its own content or whether these gems are posted in complete ignorance of their ironic content?
It seems pretty clear to me, by what Poundstone actually wrote——[ul]A new theory should be more open to possible refutation, not less. If there is one thing that is a dead giveaway for a crank theory, it is that the theory has been modified to restrict its own refutation. An honest hypothesis is open to being disproven. It’s one thing to say, there’s a ghost that appears in the old Miller mansion at the crack of midnight whenever there’s a full moon. That kind of hypothesis is worthy of attention provided there is any reasonable evidence to support it: say, testimony of a few reliable eyewitnesses. Far more typical are ghost stories that restrict refutation: A ghost appears, but never when skeptics are around.[/ul]——that, were he to join this debate, he’d far more likely classify AWC’s hypothesis as a “crank theory” than the hypothesis that is not Collounsbury’s theory, but merely established scientific consensus that he is very generously trying to share with you, AWC. You’re the one who refuses to consider concrete scientific facts that differ with your hypothesis.
Look if blacks are so good at sprinting, then why do so many blacks win marathons? Maybe you need to take your racist little “theories” back to the drawing board.
Just to poke my head in here for a quick hatchet job. The data presented in the OP are so vague that it is hard to even decipher what experiments were done, let alone their findings, let alone what is wrong (or right) with their methods or rationale.
Next,
It seems that AWC is basing her ramblings on “what common sense tells you.” Need I be the first to remind her that in the battle of science versus common sense, science has come out the clear victor:
-the earth is round
-the earth goes round the sun
-the fastest velocity there is is the speed of light in a vacuum and all the paradoxes in special and general relativity
-all matter has both wave-like and particle-like properties and all the paradoxes in quantum mechanics
-acquired traits are not inherited
-evolution works
-the universe is expanding
and so forth.
Race is defined from 18th century anthropolgical misconceptions. The utility of the concept has not served us well, by and large. The lines of divisions (which are necessary for useful categorizations) are easily blurred and shifted. With modern genetics, even blurry lines of divisions vanish. It is as simple as that: from the sociologic aspect downwards to the genetic aspect, the concept of race is quickly losing any utility it may have had – even the 2000 US Census acknowledged this (you could fill in as many bubbles as you wanted in the Race category).
AWC:
I know it contradicts common sense, but no good scientific study has ever been able to dissect convincingly a “racial” component of any complex phenotype like behavior/intellect/atheliticism/etc.
You can just accept it and move on, or you can actually try to educate yourself and read Collounsbury’s posts and some of the multitude of threads on this in the past 2 months or so. You will then see the untenability of the idea of races constituting true populations (in the genetic sense of the word), the overwhelming effects of environment on development, and the hundreds of fallacies uncovered by trying to tie specific scientific findings down to a categorization which defies any scientific description.
Igf2r is a very important and well studied gene. It is involved in many, many processes, including brain formation. It is tied to the genetic syndrome Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS), which causes features of overgrowth:
It is an extremely curious locus – the maternal copy is shut off, while the paternal copy is turned on in a process called imprinting. The function of the gene is basically to promote growth, so you may be able to squint your eyes and see how evolutionarily, perhaps it is to the mother’s advantage for the child to be small and to the father’s advantage for the child to be big. Or something.
Saying this gene is important for intelligence is like saying that steel is important for making skyscrapers. Even if an allele which promotes “high intelligence” is found to be of high frequency in Aboriginal populations (note not the “race”, but discrete genetically identifiable populations which may not even exist in Australia), there are countless other variables which would all need to fall into place before “high intelligence” is realized. I’d venture a quick guess that these factors would balance things out significantly across the population.
Until you can show me otherwise, I remain unconvinced.