A phrase you invented to hide your fallacious reasoning.
It’s not my job to define the terms you use. Besides which, I reasonably interpreted the phrase to include studying height differences between the sexes and analyzing the causes. You rejected my reasonable interpretation, calling me a “moron” in the process.
Ok, if my interpretation was unreasonable and moronic, then you should explain exactly what you meant.
But of course you cannot do that because you weren’t saying anything at all, besides simply asserting your conclusion.
Not my general position, but it’s very strong evidence that your thinking is messed up.
What’s pathetic is that you won’t own up to what you did.
It seems you have done just that kind of strawmanning with my assertion that 50 year old men are more likely to have heart attacks than 20 year old girls. (Although it’s not entirely clear what you meant.)
Please don’t do that again.
Also, you might ask yourself why you interpreted my statement unreasonably. More evidence that your thinking is fouled up.
You said nothing about “analyzing the causes”, liar. I’m merely trying to distingui between that which can be readily observed, and scientific processes which require more rigour. If you don’t believe such exist, just say so.
My mistake, in my mind the observation (and conclusion) was that men are inherently taller than women. I did not make it explicit.
Anyway, if that’s an important distinction for you, then let me ask you this:
Oh really, so 500 years ago if somebody observed that men are generally taller than women and concluded that it was an inherent difference between men and women, you would reject their observation and conclusion? You would tell them that their “simple observations” “won’t cut it”?
Simple question.
If that’s your distinction, then you should have no problem answering my question.
Perhaps you didn’t. I wasn’t referring to arguments ad populum made by you.
ETA: Here, I will insert parenthesis into my statement so you can understand it: I prefer facts and logic to (Colibri’s bluster) or (arguments ad populum).
And did you notice that the statement I was responding to mentioned stuff besides you? That it accused me of being a “lonely voice”?
No, you just misinterpreted my statement. Probably you were so eager to attack me that you didn’t bother to read the context.
Lol, more projection.
:shrug:
Google defines bluster as follows:
Doesn’t seem to require a threat. You can apologize any time you like.
Oh really, so 500 years ago if somebody observed that men are generally taller than women and concluded that it was an inherent difference between men and women, you would reject their observation and conclusion? You would tell them that their “simple observations” “won’t cut it”?
Never said the above. The point I’m trying vainly to make, is that the scientific method advances our understanding of the phenomenon in question well beyond the 'readily observable". It is no longer reasonable to hold the position that the sun and moon go around the Earth, for example. Simple correlations and observations are not sufficient for the understanding of complicated phenomenon. That you (apparently) see the question of heredity and black intelligence as this simple and obvious speaks to your limitations.
Either brazil84 has a significant mental disorder, or he’s the most obtuse person on the face of the earth with access to the Internet, as I really don’t think he’s trolling for the sake of trolling.
He really doesn’t know how to debate the points of an argument and not the semantics, does he?
I’m utterly gobsmacked at his display of impossible semantic nitpickery. Most people answer questions in a roundabout way, but he just simply cannot decipher it as an answer, but ignoring his questions. Then he just vivisects the most arbitrary parts of your post to try and catch you in a contradiction of his own construction, because he really has absolutely no idea what people are saying.
Figures of speech and impromptu terms cause him to short circuit into pedantic meandering, so he can “just try to understand what we meant,” when the meaning is painfully obvious due to context. He is just utterly clueless to a profound degree when it comes to the context of a paragraph, let alone someone’s position.
No wonder his world view and all of his arguments are so simplistic. He simply cannot digest a system or concept anymmore complex than three or more variables, so he forces the world into his own simplistic frameworks, and defends them with the elementary school tactics of I know you are but what am I?! defiance.
And attributing this to race rather than the effects of the Marshall Plan brings us back to the assumption that either you’re spectacularly ignorant or trolling. Heck, you just mentioned what happened to Germany after WWI - did they evolve into a better gene pool during WWII?
We have duly noted that you consider impolite discourse on a messageboard to somehow be worse than serious consideration of eugenics and forced labor.
You keep mentioning “special pleading” as if it somehow wins your argument for you just by mentioning it, when you are in fact using it wrong. Insisting on talking about “race” as defined by genetics is not special pleading when the discussion is about genetic difference between races; it is entirely the point. It’s basic science.
If you want to see “special pleading” at work in this thread, look at NDD’s comments about Pushkin. But I’m sure you’ll ignore it and be back with a few more “simple questions” about the definition of “science” and what “is” is.
College, akshully. Provided one majors in economics or the like (economics itself being so much further bull… I mean, not quite science. Definitely not rain-making science. Yes.)
You didn’t say it, but it’s the reasonable conclusion of statements you have made.
That’s not quite the point you were making before. Please do not weasel.
You said that “‘simple observation’ won’t cut it when it comes to higher biological sciences.”
You also assert that “higher biological sciences” does not include simple observation about the relative heights of men and women.
Later, you got indignant when I stated that I had reasonably interpreted the phrase to include studying height differences between the sexes and analyzing the causes. You stated (correctly) that earlier I had not mentioned “analyzing the causes.”
So, presumably it’s a critical distinction for you. But let me ask you this:
Does studying height differences between the sexes and analyzing the causes count as “higher biological sciences” for you? Does it fall within a reasonable definition of the phrase?
Does human nutrition, food consumption, and digestion count as a “complicated phenomenon” for you?
Does the incidence of cardiac arrest count as a “complicated phenomenon” for you?
Does human growth (and the influence of genes on that growth) count as a “complicated phenomenon” for you?
The flying fuck does that have to do with anything ? But yes, epidemiology is a science. It attempts to explain observable facts and histories, and predicts future events (as well as suggest ways to address them).
Actuarial science does neither. It’s a mere projection of current and past trends onto the future, without any attempt to explain the causes, nor to predict how the causes (nor the attempted solutions to the causes) will affect the future. Actuarial science is not quite as dumb as projecting present trends and indexes blindly… but it’s no rocket science, either. So simplifyeth my insurance buddies, anyhow (I confess to not grokking whatever the fuck they’re talking about once they start talking shop)
This was a lot more fun with NDD. Brazil is pretty boring, I feel like a cat after the mouse dies. Come back, NDD! Tell us what you estimate the IQ of Moses to have been!
He also uses Begging the Question wrong above with:
“Simple observation [i.e. casual observation] won’t cut it in any field of endeavor which requires the rigorous elimination of possible confounding variables. [i.e. a field that requires rigid, sustained, well documented and thorough observation]”
How is the above statement circular logic? He simply could not interpret the statement, as I’ve done within the brackets.
(I confess to not grokking whatever the fuck they’re talking about once they start talking shop)