Nope, you are avoiding the problem, in fact what you are doing there is to claim that there is no problem by us making the earth warm as in past times, past times that included oceans hundreds of feet higher than what we see today.
Since the 1960s governmental policies have been guided by the assumption that there are no important genetic differences between blacks and whites, and that social reform and social welfare spending can enable blacks to perform and behave as well as whites. Because these policies have failed at considerable expense in tax dollars government efforts have caused most whites to lose confidence in the government. I think this is unfortunate.
In his essay, “The Inequality Taboo” Charles Murray wrote, “specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often they do harm.”
Now there is plenty of scientific evidence that racial differences are primarily genetic, as I have already demonstrated by posting this:
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx#id_d90f8fc5-74e1-46ab-bd03-eafd0730133a
NDD, you’ve also repeatedly said something to the affect of “the gap between white and black achievement (in education or whatever) has not decreased since civil rights”.
This is incorrect- as the figures here show, there has been slow but relatively steady shrinking in the gap in both reading and math across all age groups measured. The progress has not been fast, but there has been progress, and there continues to be.
Incidentally World Net Daily is also a heaven for birtherism,
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201104120020
If there is a common property of people that have problems with science or evidence is that they often do fall not just for one pseudoscience or conspiracy theory, they go all the way mixing and matching woo woo ideas.
The problem is that we are warming the world’s climate much faster than it cooled. Also in the past sea levels were higher. Much of the world that is inhabited will be under water unless global warming is curbed.
And that is good, now, if you do not see any trouble at all by following people like brazil84 or sources like World Net Daily nothing can help you, because I can tell you that now brazil84 will put you in his ignore list; you see, you are not worthy of him now.
What you say is true of the NAEP. Nevertheless the race gap in SAT scores between whites and blacks has grown:
I doubt very seriously that brazil84 will put me on his ignore list.
And that is fine by me, I only need to point others to these recent posts to show all what “fine” company you keep.
For one thing, that shows a different time period than the NAEP.
But at the very least, it’s obvious that the evidence is not at all conclusive for your supposition (that the “achievement gap” has not narrowed).
Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.
Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. To say, “You should exercise because it’s good for you” is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.”
http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-circular.htm
There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or “cogent”) inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.
I have been accused of circular reasoning. This would be true if my argument was: blacks behave and perform poorly. Therefore they are inferior, and if I provided no evidence of inferior black behavior and performance.
Instead, I begin by documenting my assertions of poor black behavior and performance. Then I suggest that the evidence indicates genetic inferiority, even while explaining how genetic inferiority could be disproved by an end to inferior black behavior and performance. My argument is inductive, rather than deductive, but it is not circular, because I document the premises on which my argument is based.
Nah, you are just really butt hurt because biologists in GD are showing what an ignoramus you are, so you have to pitifully come to the pit to look for reassurances made by woo woo proponents, sad really.
I concede your point. I have also stated that my racial theories will be disproved when blacks behave and perform as well as whites. On the other hand, they will be conclusively proven if genes for performance and behavior are discovered, and if they vary among the races.
I cannot document this, but it is conceivable to me that more effort is being devoted to improving black performance than white performance. This would explain the narrowing of the NAEP gap, even as the SAT gap increases.
I have an address to a website that is unfortunately no longer maintained that documented that in 2003 Washington, DC had the most expensive public school system in the country, the lowest test scores, and the highest black population.
Here is the web address:
You do not prove that by asserting it. I document my factual assertions. In order to find information on the internet one needs to know what to look for, and where to look.
No, your argument is completely flawed. Because you keep insisting that any inferiority that’s observed must be genetic. And at the same time, you admit that no such genes have ever been discovered.
Without the genes, your genetic theory has no proof whatsoever. It’s based on nothing except wishful thinking.
You’re a racist. So you’ve chosen to believe a unproven theory is true despite the lack of evidence because that theory supports your racist beliefs.
And you are really dumb by thinking we are ignoring the factual evidence, where you fail is in the causes, solutions and ways to use science to solve the “issue”, as it is very clear, there is still no support of specific genes being the main reason for the levels of intelligence or violence seen in humans, nor there is evidence that the environment is not one of the main forces involved.
No, that’s not correct. It doesn’t matter whether you can provide evidence of ‘‘inferior black behavior and performance.’’ The burden of proof is not to prove that - that is merely the observation you are trying to explain. In order to prove your argument, you must provide evidence that your observation is caused by genetics. As it stands, there are a million theories about why ‘‘inferior black behavior and performance’’ exists. In order for you to win this argument, you must prove that this is the result of genetics. To say that the proof is inequality all over the world is textbook circular reasoning. You are supporting your argument with your premise, and that’s bad logic.
Furthermore, in order to be scientifically rigorous, you must explain how the evidence of environmental influence is explained by your theory.
I explained this to you with the moon metaphor. I explained it very simply. You’re intelligent enough to operate a computer, so why are you not grasping this?
Environment is obviously a force, but not the only or even the most important factor. The persistent pattern of racial differences, both geographically and historically, provides impressive evidence of genetic differences. Also, racial differences are plausible when we consider that different racial groups have faced different population pressures. In paleolithic societies the best hunters and warriors had several wives and the most children. In China members of the scholar gentry did.
During historical times soldiers and sailors frequently enlisted for long periods of time when it was difficult or impossible for them to get married and have children.
This assertion is laughable. Sailors throughout history have had a reputation for “spreading their seed” in every port, and wars notoriously leave waves of single, pregnant young women in their wake. The fathers didn’t all die- some of them just went back home.
Because of the persistence of racial differences throughout the world, and throughout history, the burden of proof is in those who maintain that they are environmental.
Exceptional individuals have often grown up in difficult environments. Nevertheless, no one had devised an environment that reliably turns children chosen at random into successful scientists in the hard sciences, and members of the more intellectually demanding professions.