Wade Book "A Troublesome Inheritance" - science, or racism?

[Chen019]

@BrightNShiny

Well, I’m glad you admit that everyone is just speculating. We can dispense with the idea that you are actually doing science then.

But, Wade made specific scientific claims which were rebutted by the articles in the other thread. So, let’s get the counter-rebuttals from the Wade defenders.

Hypotheses aren’t part of science? Re-read Hsu’s article. I

Further extrapolation to behavioral and cognitive traits will require more data, but:

1. The question is scientific – it can be answered with known methods. (I estimate of order millions of genotype-phenotype pairs will allow us to extract the genetic architecture of complex traits like cognitive ability – perhaps sometime in the coming decade.)

2. There is no a priori argument, given what we currently know, that such differences cannot exist. (Cf. Neanderthals!) Note this is NOT an argument that differences exist – merely that they might, and that we cannot exclude the possibility.

In relation to the rebuttals/discussion it seems Chuck, Chief Pedant and Evil Economist have been arguing back and forth for some time if you check the thread.

[BrightNShiny]

@Chen019

Hypotheses aren’t part of science? Re-read Hsu’s article.

A testable hypothesis, followed by actual research, followed by revisions to the hypothesis, etc., etc. is science. What you are doing is not science.

In relation to the rebuttals/discussion it seems Chuck, Chief Pedant and Evil Economist have been arguing back and forth for some time if you check the thread.

So, you actually have no rebuttal to the articles? Good to know. Why are you in this thread, then?

[Miller]

@Chen019

Hypotheses aren’t part of science? Re-read Hsu’s article.

Bunsen burners are also part of science, but using one to cook cocaine doesn’t make a crackhead into a scientist.

[Smeghead]

@Chen019

Hypotheses aren’t part of science? Re-read Hsu’s article. I

We don’t publish hypotheses. We don’t expect anyone else to believe them. The only thing hypotheses are good for is to get them tested.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@Smeghead

We don’t publish hypotheses. We don’t expect anyone else to believe them. The only thing hypotheses are good for is to get them tested.

Uh, no. Speculative papers consisting of nothing but hypotheses (and the reasoning behind them) are published in journals all the time.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@Chen019

Hypotheses aren’t part of science? Re-read Hsu’s article. I

In relation to the rebuttals/discussion it seems Chuck, Chief Pedant and Evil Economist have been arguing back and forth for some time if you check the thread.

Are you a Hsu fan? I haven’t read a lot of his blog, but I know people who are very much into his stuff, and I’ve met him before through work.

[Chen019]

@Hector_St_Clare

Are you a Hsu fan? I haven’t read a lot of his blog, but I know people who are very much into his stuff, and I’ve met him before through work.

Yes, I think his blog has interesting discussion across a range of subjects. He comes across as an open minded and intellectually curious guy with a sense of humor.

[BrightNShiny]

1. Intelligence is partially heritable (as are all behavioural traits).

2. If you have some reproductive advantage associated with that cultural niche, you’ll get an increase in the prevalence of that trait.

That is pretty much the argument for the high average level of intelligence for Ashkenazi jewish groups - pegged at about 110? That means on a normal distribution of intelligence, you’ll get a far higher proportion of people with high IQ’s who enter cognitively demanding professions.

When people start bringing up IQ, it’s clear they’ve lost the plot. IQ is only a rough measurement of intelligence, and more importantly for this discussion, IQ scores have been rising steadily for the past century. Now, it’s possible that people have been undergoing some dramatic intelligence-related genetic shift for the past century, in which case you need to posit a theory of how that shift has happened, account for all the places where it didn’t happen, and then actually do some comparitive DNA study between human populations over the past century to make that claim. But the people who bring up IQ in these discussions never discuss all of that. They just state “IQ” and wave jazz-hands like that’s supposed to be meaningful. For all I know, IQ is a flawed measure of intelligence and is highly subject to socialization or nutrition or test-taking ability. And if that’s the case, there’s no reason to assume yet that potential IQ breaks down more-or-less on socially-constructed racial lines.

The only correct scientific answer here is that we don’t yet have a clear understanding of what intelligence is. We don’t have a clear understanding of how intelligence develops. We know that genetics can play a role, but we also know very well that things like environmental exposure, socialization and nutrition play a role as well. We don’t know how all those things interact yet. The only proper scientific answer is to say we don’t know. Not to point at IQ tests and act as if that proves something. IQ tests are only one small part of the puzzle.

Now, let’s take the Ashkenazis… I’m going to use the OP’s summary:

Wade has espoused is that Ashkenazi Jews were subject to unique survival stresses, not being able to own land in most of Europe for most of the last 1000 years.

So, there are a number of premises here which are highly suspect. The first is the claim that Jews were not able to own land in most of Europe for most of the last 1000 years. Eh. That varied by time and place. The early Frankish empire was pretty liberal about this with regards to Jews, as were the Ottomans and the Spanish Moors. Sometimes there were spasms of restrictions, sometimes they were lessened. So, we’ve got one premise that’s highly dubious.

Then, there’s another premise which is that not owning land was somehow unique. Come on, lots of people didn’t own land in Europe because lots of people weren’t landed gentry. So, that’s hardly unique.

Then, we have an implied premise that not owning the land means you couldn’t work the land. And of course, that’s utter nonsense, since tenant-farming practices have been around in Europe for ages.

So, even before we get to the speculation, we have a bunch of shaky and iffy premises. Now, maybe the OP’s summary isn’t quite correct here (I can’t really remember), but this is the kind of thing racialists do all the time. They have a shaky, thin grasp of history and then use their thing grasp to draw sweeping conclusions about genetics. I mean, history is much easier to understand then genetics, and if you can’t get the history right, why should I trust what you have to say about genetics?

Still waiting on counter-rebuttals to Wade’s critics.