Of course height can be affected by socioeconomic status, as improved nutrition during childhood will lead to greater height.
In fact this is a great example. Height is significantly impacted by heredity. No one will disagree. Now we have two populations, one of which is on average 3" taller than the other.
How much of that difference should we ascribe to genetics?
Without knowing more, it’s impossible to answer the question.
However, let’s suppose we also observe that the shorter population is shorter almost everywhere in the world they happen to have ended up (they are all descended from the people of one large geographical area)-- in rich countries, poor countries, countries with good nutrition, countries with poor nutrition, and so on. And that it’s been this way for a long time as far as anyone knows. Let’s further suppose that a lot of effort has been put into closing the “height gap” by spending a lot of money on healthy foods for the shorter population, but the “height gap” persists nonetheless.
In that case, the reasonable conclusion is that at least a substantial portion of the difference in height is the result of genetics.
Yup, difficult. But that doesn’t mean we go back to pre-enlightenment philosophical debate for the basis of our scientific understanding. Just as one can hypothesize that black holes are gateways to another dimension can’t be assumed as true until it is, in fact, proven.
Ok, and does the same reasoning apply to other claims, for example the claim that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer?
Will you not accept that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer until you see a study which eliminated all possible other causes such as cultural or economic influences?
Perhaps. But that’s not the case with intelligence, nor criminal statistics.
It’s more like this- for hundreds of years, there was very little extensive, scientific height-measuring around the world. For the last several decades, there’s been extensive measuring of height in a small number of countries, and rather spotty height-measuring in most others. And in the countries with the best measuring, there had been (until the last few decades) a history of the examiners using poorly calibrated equipment for the shorter population, not to mention systemic discrimination that meant they received poorer quality nutrition. In many of the recent studies (though not all), the “height gap” has been shrinking over time. And in a few communities, when corrected for economic data, the height gap has virtually disappeared (indeed, among one immigrant community the height gap is totally reversed).
In this case, there’s not nearly enough data to conclude that genetic difference between the populations accounts for the height gap.
Modern studies do eliminate other possible causes (for cigarettes and lung cancer), by using proper scientific methods like control groups, correcting for age and other health-related conditions, etc.
Interestingly, studies now have to be controlled for a relatively-recently discovered risk factor - household radon exposure.
Yup, and as other posters have noted, they are.
So back to the “race” thing, if you are going by the method the census uses, does the genetic make-up of a person change if they change their race the next year on their form?
I’m seriously skeptical of this claim.
Please show me one scientific study which eliminates all other possible causes such as cultural or economic influences and shows that smoking cigarettes cause lung cancer.
Nope.
Edit: In humans.
There’s an example in the post before mine. Its not all done in one study.
Then the census methodology can hardly be a scientific way of determining race, then, can it?
And he keeps demonstrating his misunderstanding of how science works. It’s not one study. It’s never just one study. It’s an immense body of work. Real science is hard.
What’s most amusing is that 84 apparently thinks that doctors just “know” that cigarettes can cause lung cancer… he doesn’t realize that there have been decades of studies, rigorous methodologies, and controls specifically designed to rule out any other possible cause.
That study addresses the effects of radon, not cigarette smoking. I don’t see anything there even asserting that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer. Let alone proving it.
Is that the best you can do?
Because I have a very strong belief that there is no study (or group of studies) which eliminate all other possible causes such as cultural or economic influences and prove that smoking cigarettes cause lung cancer in humans.
Sure it can be. Are you denying the scientific validity of any study which (1) uses race as a variable; and (2) relies on self-identification to determine race?
It is perhaps more accurate to say that it is very established that smoking causes greater risk, but is of course not the sole cause. The science is of course very clear.
Here we have again an example that he does not in any fashion understand how medical and scientific studies work or how they are written.
And here he is expecting a black and white answer, yes or no, to a question that is about the statistical risks. It is again an illustration of his weak understanding and his weak intelligence. If it is not yes or no, he can not understand it.
Of course the science for the smoking elevating risk of lung cancer is very strong and very clear.
That does not mean there are not other factors. It is very stupid to think of it in that fashion, but it is not surprising from his interactions that he thinks this way.
**
Censuses as scientific methodology of determining race**
This one is the most amusing of the responses as it says so very clearly that he has not one small bit of understanding of the biological question. It is extraordinary to think that a census is proving biological questions. Truly 84 is quite stupid.
My position irrelevant. One can critique a study or position without taking a a definite alternative position (false dichotomy).
It’s relevant to me – I’m not going to spend energy engaging with you over my position if you won’t tell me exactly where you disagree with me.
Agree – but I’m not interested in defending my position to someone who won’t tell me where he himself stands, or at least that he doesn’t know.
Truer words have never been spoken.
Boy, 50 pages and the racialist asstards still won’t STFU.
What more extreme measures are available here? Serious question.
A good study will look at all causes, even in something as relatively simple as lung cancer.
No, I could probably find better studies about lung cancer, but this thread is about racism, not lung cancer. Start a new thread if you wish to learn about lung cancer.
When trying to correlate with genetics I would.
You’re on an internet board. If you want people to shut up, don’t read the thread.
I think exposing racists with their own speech is the best way to handle them. Give them enough rope to hang themselves.