Au contraire! Nothing I said was in error. (a) I referred to the calculations made by Scarr et al.,:
“An extrapolation from the contrast between extremes within the hybrid group to the average differences between the races predicts that not more than one third of the observed difference between the races could be due to genetic differences. In view of the negligible correlations between estimated ancestry and intellectual skills even this seems unlikely"
(b) I pointed out that the conclusion drawn was incorrect – there was nothing original here as all of this has already been said – and (c) I showed that the found correlations were utterly consistent with a genetic hypothesis – again nothing original here, which is just to say – which should be obvious – that the study lacked the power to detect a statistically significant difference, given the magnitude of possible difference under discussion, the sample size, and the methodology. That is, there was a type II error here. To put it yet another way, since you seem to be having trouble with this, if the correlation found (-.05) was found to be stat sig. – which would have required approximately 4000 subjects in the study – then we could be reasonably sure that the genetic component of the difference was well over 50%.
The point then was that the findings of this study were not inconsistent with the genetic hypothesis under question.
So do you or do you not grant the distinction between race as zoologically defined and race as other-wisely defined in biology? Or would you argue that all biologically defined race concepts are identical to the concept used in zoology?
I agree that so long as you were quoting Scarr, you were not saying anything wrong. The problems crept in when you started adding your own commentary.
I’m not the one having a problem here. The correlation found was NOT statistically significant, therefore everything you said was wrong. Do you deny this?
Also, you seem to be assuming that if we’d had more subjects in the study, we’d have had the same result but at a higher level of significance. This is of course utterly wrong.
This is also utterly wrong. The results of this study could not reject the null hypothesis; that is, they explicitly contradicted the genetic hypothesis. We would expect the correlations to be statistically insignificant if the genetics hypothesis were false, and that’s the result we got.
Descartes entertained radical skepticism – and rejected it. Would citing him in defense of certain knowledge represent an inconsistency on my part, given his willingness to entertain? Likewise, Reed entertained the possibility that no admixture study could resolve the issue – and rejected it. He then went onto discuss the methodological flaws in the Scarr et al. study and propose an improved method which could be used with a sample size similar to that used by Scarr et al.
Again, no contradiction. I showed that the correlation found was consistent with that predicted by a genetic hypothesis, given the methodology used. Reed explained why the methodology used, given the sample size, was unable to detect a stat sig difference.
Actually, no. Ecotype is identical to what you apparently mean by “zoological race.” And “biological race,” if it means anything different than that, could only be another (and needless) term for “species.”
I’m sorry, but I’d prefer to read his conclusions for myself; do you have a link to the paper?
I think you misspoke; you meant to say “The lack of statistical significance was consistent with that predicted by a purely environmental hypothesis, given the methods used”
Again, the results did not contradict a genetic hypothesis, because the study lacked the power to test it. The correlation predicted by a genetic hypothesis is about -.05. I can go through the math if you want. This was the correlation found. Given the sample size, it would have been impossible for this correlation to have been found to be statistically significant. The findings are consistent with a genetic hypothesis in the sense that the correlation found was identical to the correlation predicted.
Reread what I said. Nothing was incorrect. My point was twofold:
(a) the correlation/ mean difference found was no different from the correlation predicted
(b) the study lacked the power to test a genetic hypothesis
On the basis of this I argued that the findings were consistent – perhaps I should have said “not inconsistent” – with a genetic hypothesis. They were also, of course, consistent with a environmental hypothesis. Which is to say that they are unable to reduce the genetic-environmental uncertainty.
“Seem” is a weasel word. I made no such assumption. I merely pointed out that, contra Scarr et al., the magnitude of the correlation was consistent with a genetic hypothesis.
Let’s be very clear here: the statistical correlation found by the study was indistinguishable from zero. You can hypothesize all you like about the results that would have been found if there had been more subjects, but that’s not what was found.
You are focused on this -0.05, but this is absolutely incorrect; that number has no significance at all, and by saying both 1) it was statistically insignificant and 2) it was exactly what it should be, you are contradicting yourself.
Their findings were consistent *only *with the environmental hyopthesis. You can argue that they should have run the test differently, but the results of that study *ruled out *the genetic hypothesis. If you think a new test with more subjects would produce different results, then go run that test, but don’t try to mislead anyone by claiming that the results of this test are any different than they were.
The magnitude of the correlation was statistically indistinguishable from zero, which is consistent only with an environmental hypothesis.
The abstract of that paper says: “human ecotypic races do not in general correspond with ‘folk’ racial categories…consequently while human natural races exist they have little or nothing in common with ‘folk’ races.”
Do you realize that you just cited a paper that specifically says there’s no such thing as a black race?
I’ll say this one more time: The study lacked the power to test a genetic hypothesis. It was incapable of ruling in or out a genetic hypothesis. That the magnitude of the found correlation was statistically indistinguishable from that predicted by a genetic hypothesis was consistent with a genetic hypothesis.
Let me add that upon reading the paper further, the (still significantly insignificant) correlation was actually -0.02. That makes your “analysis” wrong in two ways.
You know, I Google searched some of your posts here. You post word-for-word stuff in lots of places across the internet. Lots of discussions of race IQ differences using exactly the same language you used here, even the same typos.
They argue – and I disagree with them on this point --that the classic racial delineations don’t match “natural races.” And – and I agree with them on this point – that there are natural races, delineated otherwise. Again no contradiction. Since my original point was “the non existence of zoological races wouldn’t imply the non existence of biological races other-wisely defined.” As for “black races” they might exist from an ecotypic perspective. .