# Once again, a pitting of our local pseudo-scientific racialists **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 5, 2013, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184 "2013-01-05T19:21:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/261 "2013-01-09T07:32:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Please. Just because something may make you or others uncomfortable doesn’t mean it isn’t true. :rolleyes: But repeated refutation over the course of centuries does present the probability. Like I said, and truth it is, at this point, we are long past the point where any assertion of scientific racism must be held to the standard of “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/262 "2013-01-09T09:00:39Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > When I visit a University and see it full of Jewish, Indian, and Chinese students it doesn’t exactly make me feel like I’m a member of the master race. You’re divining a kind of teleological purpose from a small, unscientific sample. In Scotland, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Indian individuals have lower health outcomes generally and life expectancy in particular than whites. Pakistani individuals perform worse than Indians in education outcomes according to “Ethnic Minorities’ Economic Performance” (2001) - is that attributable to genetic difference? In their countries of origin, Indian and Chinese people have lower health and education outcomes. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/263 "2013-01-09T14:39:37Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > So if the standardized test gap is due to differing allele frequencies among the populations (I use the term in their sense, not mine), then what’s the selective pressure for being extra-smart in Europe and Asia, and being less smart in the Western Hemisphere and Africa? What is so special about the European and Asian environment that led to this differentiation in intelligence? What led to the apparent loss of this intelligence in Native Americans? I find this argument particularly unconvincing. There’s probably more that we don’t know than we do know about why some genes tend to be more common in one place than another, and much of what we think we know is speculative. > [@Trinopus](#): > > As I understand it, intelligence is vastly polygenetic. It comes from so very many combinations of sources – and is, also, so very dependent on the growth process of the individual – malnutrition in childhood is probably much more influential than genetics ever could be – that the idea of tying it to genetics is meaningless. This seems like a logical error. If something is more correlated to one factor than to another, that does not imply that it’s not also tied to the second factor. > [@](#): > > There may be a single gene for eye-color, but there isn’t a single gene for height. Instead, height comes from vast combinations of genetic effects. And intelligence is probably even more multiplex. > > You probably know the old canard about the Napoleonic wars resulting in the reduction of the average height of the French people, by dint of the horrible losses in battles and wars. Utterly false. It’s a simple calculation to show that, if height depended on no more than 10 genes, you’d still have needed to kill some 90% of all French males to produce even a small percentage of loss in overall height. > > This is also why the “marching morons” argument – if stupid people have more children than smart people, then the average IQ worldwide must always be dropping – is not true. Even if all smart people were childless, the overall IQ wouldn’t descend measurably, because so very, very many genes are involved in intelligence. This seems self-refuting. Because it’s fairly obvious that the height of children is highly correlated to the heights of their parents. (It also seems to be pretty accepted that some populations are taller than others - Dutch are pretty tall IIRC - but this is not my primary point.) ---
**Author:** ![Doughbag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Doughbag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doughbag)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/264 "2013-01-09T14:44:02Z")
Jeepers, those racist imbeciles still have no idea how science and genetics works. Please, stop procreating with your parents and siblings. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/265 "2013-01-09T14:47:35Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > You’re divining a kind of teleological purpose from a small, unscientific sample. In Scotland, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Indian individuals have lower health outcomes generally and life expectancy in particular than whites. Pakistani individuals perform worse than Indians in education outcomes according to “Ethnic Minorities’ Economic Performance” (2001) - is that attributable to genetic difference? In their countries of origin, Indian and Chinese people have lower health and education outcomes. I’m not sure I agree with the Pakistani/Indian comparison. As above, everyone agrees that there are also other factors that influence education outcomes beyond genetics, and proving that genetics does not account for all the difference between populations is no indication at all that it doesn’t account for part of it. That said, I agree with the broader point. Immigrants to the US are mostly a self-selected group, and for the most part the Asian immigrants who come here are a particularly ambitious and driven group, and they may have been more intelligent than their compatriots even before they came. You can’t compare them to African-Americans who were brought here as slaves. (OTOH, to the extent that this is true, there may be valid basis for the assumption that some of these immigrant groups in the US are genetically favored, although it would be based on selection rather than ethnicity.) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/266 "2013-01-09T15:05:00Z")
Heck, I’ll be impressed when a geneticist can do a blind test in which he is given 100 unlabeled human genomes and can say with accuracy which came from Caucasians, Negros, Asians, etc. Until then, or until some genetic markers for intelligence are identified and their prevalence within certain populations is statistically estimated with some confidence, the genetic argument is pure fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/267 "2013-01-09T16:03:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But repeated refutation over the course of centuries does present the probability. Like I said, and truth it is, at this point, we are long past the point where any assertion of scientific racism must be held to the standard of “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” I don’t think it would be extraordinary at all. Either way. Given the array of physical characteristics that align with specific populations, what is so extraordinary that genes might also account for cognitive differences? You just want to deem the position “extraordinary” to serve your own purposes. That way the “racialists” become crackpots. Your game is too obvious though. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/268 "2013-01-09T16:14:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t think it would be extraordinary at all. Either way. Given the array of physical characteristics that align with specific populations, what is so extraordinary that genes might also account for cognitive differences? Nothing at all, what would be extraordinary is if the alleles for higher intelligence turn out to be distributed exactly equally among all ethnic and racial groups. It’s known that the alleles for simple traits like blood type are not distributed equally. It’s also known that the alleles for more complex traits like skeleton shape are not distributed equally. Yet the Leftists insist that cognitive ability is special – the very essence of special pleading. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/269 "2013-01-09T16:34:46Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You mean they might be… latent? They’re not just here for the hunting, as they say. > [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t think it would be extraordinary at all. Either way. Given the array of physical characteristics that align with specific populations, what is so extraordinary that genes might also account for cognitive differences? Nothing. But “you can’t prove it isn’t true, therefore we should assume it is (or is probably) true until sufficient counterevidence is provided” is not a reasonable stance to take, whereas “you can’t prove it’s true, therefore we should assume it is (or is probably) not true until sufficient evidence is provided” is considerably moreso. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/270 "2013-01-09T16:35:23Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > There’s probably more that we don’t know than we do know about why some genes tend to be more common in one place than another, Well consider that every allele has to originate somewhere and there’s no reason to assume there’s been enough time for higher intelligence alleles to make it to every last corner of the globe. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/271 "2013-01-09T16:44:59Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > But “you can’t prove it isn’t true, therefore we should assume it is (or is probably) true until sufficient counterevidence is provided” is not a reasonable stance to take, whereas “you can’t prove it’s true, therefore we should assume it is (or is probably) not true until sufficient evidence is provided” is considerably moreso. That’s a false dichotomy. The excluded middle is “you can’t prove it’s true and you can’t prove it isn’t, so it remains uncertain until sufficient evidence is provided”. The idea that we need to take a definitive stand in the absence of evidence has no logical basis. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/272 "2013-01-09T16:57:21Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s a false dichotomy. > > The excluded middle is “you can’t prove it’s true and you can’t prove it isn’t, so it remains uncertain until sufficient evidence is provided”. > > The idea that we need to take a definitive stand in the absence of evidence has no logical basis. Which is why I didn’t phrase it in absolute terms. But you’ll note that the bulk of the opposition here to those claiming that differences in intelligence among racial groupings in genetic is not (despite **brazil84** ’s strawmanning) “all races are equal” but rather “you have no reliable evidence for that whatsoever”. It’s the ones asserting the genetic basis for differences in particular populations who are taking a definitive stand in the absence of evidence. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/273 "2013-01-09T17:13:39Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > The Powers-That-Be have chosen to take the stance that this kind of racism is just peachily A-OK with them, as long as it doesn’t break any other rules. Does that mean we are just supposed to let it slide too? Because that might give people a view of the Dope that I don’t really want to be associated with. Well, honestly, that’s the correct view of the dope, as you’ve already pointed out. This forum is peachily A-OK with racism. And the racists are absolutely desperate to have these conversations, over and over, because they have nothing else. They wouldn’t be allowed to have them other places. But the board steps up and says, “Oh, we’ll give you a platform!” If the board doesn’t want to look like a haven for racists, the board should stop being a haven for racists. These guys want to have the conversation, again and again. They steer conversations to race. Everything is about race for them, and they can’t talk about it in places where anyone knows them, so they come here and hope they get an opportunity. I don’t think anything is wrong with the motives of people who argue with them, though. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/274 "2013-01-09T17:24:56Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Which is why I didn’t phrase it in absolute terms. > > But you’ll note that the bulk of the opposition here to those claiming that differences in intelligence among racial groupings [in] genetic… I’m not sure anyone is claiming that the difference is _definitively_ genetic. Just that it might be, and given the facts offered concerning populations that show specific physical characteristics and tests scores and the like, that that avenue of inquiry should be open, not demonized. That’s my position, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/275 "2013-01-09T17:32:40Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m not sure anyone is claiming that the difference is _definitively_ genetic. Just that it might be, and given the facts offered concerning populations that show specific physical characteristics and tests scores and the like, that that avenue of inquiry should be open, not demonized. > > That’s my position, anyway. Which is a good starting point. The problem comes when it also turns into the finishing point. And since there is actual evidence to show that phenotypes do not correlate to genotypes, to continue to assert that differences between populations defined by phenotype or subculture or geography are genetic when the evidence suggests otherwise tends to indicate that the people asserting it are not interested in “open avenues of enquiry” and actual scientific investigation. I’ll grant you that the position you set out is intuitive, but what the genes show is counterintuitive. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/276 "2013-01-09T19:06:52Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > But you’ll note that the bulk of the opposition here to those claiming that differences in intelligence among racial groupings in genetic is not (despite **brazil84** ’s strawmanning) “all races are equal” but rather “you have no reliable evidence for that whatsoever”. It’s the ones asserting the genetic basis for differences in particular populations who are taking a definitive stand in the absence of evidence. ISTM that a lot of people on both sides are making pretty absolute claims. And you specifically offered those as the only two options. > [@Gyrate](#): > > Which is a good starting point. The problem comes when it also turns into the finishing point. And since there is actual evidence to show that phenotypes do not correlate to genotypes, to continue to assert that differences between populations defined by phenotype or subculture or geography are genetic when the evidence suggests otherwise tends to indicate that the people asserting it are not interested in “open avenues of enquiry” and actual scientific investigation. ISTM that - unless I’ve misunderstood what you’re saying here - this does not logically follow, as I demonstrated earlier with my example of dogs in different neighborhoods. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/277 "2013-01-09T19:33:55Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m not sure anyone is claiming that the difference is _definitively_ genetic. FWIW my position is that it’s reasonably certain that the difference is genetic in large part. Just like it’s reasonably certain that smoking cigarettes cause lung cancer. Note that I am not saying the difference is all due to genes. Of course, the more effort is put in to equalizing environments, the greater the amount of the difference is due to genes. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/278 "2013-01-09T20:08:28Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > . . . FWIW I do not engage with this poster due to his refusal to answer reasonable questions about his position. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/279 "2013-01-09T21:10:26Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > FWIW my position is that it’s reasonably certain that the difference is genetic in large part. That’s nice. We’re all more than happy to afford your position WIW. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/280 "2013-01-09T21:12:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You are incorrect. There is zero genetic evidence of any difference in intelligence. I am not an expert but you seem to be confusing the notions of evidence versus proof. Statistical evidence is still evidence, isn’t it? I can’t PROVE that the IQ is the result of genetic differences between blacks and whites but I do have evidence that there is a heritable IQ gap between the population that defines themselves as black and the population that defines itself as white. There have been enough peer reviewed studies over time that have controlled for environmental factors (obviously there are some factors that canot be controlled, like stereotype threat and the psychological effects of racism and racist expectations) that you almost have to believe that America is as racist a country today as it was almost a century ago to believe that there isn’t a genetic component to the IQ gap. > [@](#): > > No, it’s not compelling (for a genetic explanation). It’s easy to dismiss, because there’s no genetic evidence for it, and the hypothesis has not been tested. How would YOU test it? Or is your position not disprovable until we can identify the IQ gene (which almost certainly doesn’t exist as a discrete gene, which makes you wonder if there is such a thing as g)? > [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Why did you quote me? I just gave an accurate, objective analysis of the data as presented by the wiki on that study. Not sure why you thought I was injecting politics into it. Because you are emphasizing the uncertainty that exists in ALL statistical analysis and saying, well that means we just don’t know enough to be able to say either way. We know enough to say that SOME of the gap is LIKELY caused by heritable factors. The studies your post seems to be dismissing are statistically sound and point to non-environmental factors being a likely factor in the IQ gap. > [@magellan01](#): > > But here’s what IO don’t get: why the burning desire to take the non-cultural explanations off the table completely. I mean, they MAY be playing an actual role. And there is some evidence for this. _Evidence_, mind you, not _proof_, two things that often get conflated on these boards. The main reason is because its an extremely racist statement to make without PROOF or at least a lot more evidence than we currently have. I don’t know why people make these sort of arguments in your neck of the woods but in the DC beltway, this argument is largely a stalking horse for eliminating affirmative action and absolving ourselves of any historical blame for the socioeconomic differences we see between blacks and whites today. After all if there is a genetic difference in something as fundamental as intelligence between races then we have to wonder if we aren’t already where we would be anyway without the history of slavery, segregation and racism and any further remedial action would be overcorrection. If the folks I met who argued your point of view weren’t also consistently against affirmative action and didn’t consistently minimize the effects of 3 centuries of slavery and a century of segregation and ongoing racism today, I might feel differently. Its not that everyone who believes in this genetic difference in IQ is racist, but almost every racist seems to have unshakable faith in this genetic difference in IQ (they also seem to be overwhelmingly conservatives). > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Here’s a comparable hypothesis/explanation situation: let’s say there are several different populations of parrots in a jungle- > > …All of those Biologists made a hypothesis- but they have no evidence yet. We have peer reviewed statistical analysis. You don’t need to be a biologist. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > To fully flesh out this comparison to the “race and intelligence” argument is to imagine that, before any genes for egg-laying are found, Biologist A begins to teach that “the Green parrots are more successful because of genetics- they have a better genetic tendency to lay more eggs”- and to support this, he pulls out all the data about the expanded population and territory of the Green birds (but no genetic data). He would be roundly, and properly, mocked for this- because he’s only made a hypothesis. He has no evidence to support his hypothesis. Isn’t it more like someone saying that green parrots lay more eggs and as proof showing a statistical analysis that shows green parrots lay more eggs than red or yellow parrots under similar circumstances even if they aren’t able to identify the gene that would cause the higher rate. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But repeated refutation over the course of centuries does present the probability. Like I said, and truth it is, at this point, we are long past the point where any assertion of scientific racism must be held to the standard of “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” Why is the claim extraordinary? > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Heck, I’ll be impressed when a geneticist can do a blind test in which he is given 100 unlabeled human genomes and can say with accuracy which came from Caucasians, Negros, Asians, etc. Until then, or until some genetic markers for intelligence are identified and their prevalence within certain populations is statistically estimated with some confidence, the genetic argument is pure fantasy. Anthropologists seem to be able to tell with some accuracy based on bones. > [@Gyrate](#): > > Which is why I didn’t phrase it in absolute terms. > > But you’ll note that the bulk of the opposition here to those claiming that differences in intelligence among racial groupings in genetic is not (despite **brazil84** ’s strawmanning) “all races are equal” but rather “you have no reliable evidence for that whatsoever”. It’s the ones asserting the genetic basis for differences in particular populations who are taking a definitive stand in the absence of evidence. I think that the staistical data provides enough evidence that the burden shifts to the other side to prove the flaw in the analysis, not merely state that all statistical analysis comes with some uncertainty. > [@brazil84](#): > > FWIW my position is that it’s reasonably certain that the difference is genetic in large part. > > Just like it’s reasonably certain that smoking cigarettes cause lung cancer. > > Note that I am not saying the difference is all due to genes. Of course, the more effort is put in to equalizing environments, the greater the amount of the difference is due to genes. I don’t know about the “in large part” language otherwise, yeah, we can no more PROVE that there is a genetic difference than we can PROVE that smoking causes lung cancer (and tobacco companies hid behind this inability to “PROVE” the causal link for decades). But we have enough statistical analysis that its hard to explain it any other way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184.md?page=15)