All speculation is “unproven speculation”. If it was proven, it would no longer be speculation.
There’s a difference between speculation that is not supported by any facts or evidence, speculation that is supported by some facts and evidence, and proven theories. You’re trying to eliminate the middle category, but it’s a valid one.
The bar in general is set by the scientific community. What you’re trying to do is set the bar as applied to this specific issue. Unfortunately, you’re using means which don’t reflect well on you.
Yes, I am - “speculation” with facts and evidence isn’t speculation anymore, it’s a hypothesis. Then it falls into the realm of science and yes, is up for proof or dismissal. This is the falsificationist view which idle speculation never permits itself to be open to. And that’s what renders it unscientific.
Note that it takes particular kinds of “facts and evidence” for particular kinds of assertions - hence the demand for genetic evidence for genetic assertions.
(Or statistical evidence for statistical assertions like correlations, *a la *magellan)
No, it isn’t. It’s a made-up middle ground. There’s scientific statements or there’s JAQing off. No middle ground.
Are you saying the genetics of race *isn’t *a scientific issue? Because that would be a ridiculously absurd thing to say.
I couldn’t give a gassy shit how actually asking for scientific evidence for scientific statement reflects on me to people whose aim is to misuse science, or their fellow travelers.
So shouldn’t you be arguing up-and-down on the Dope that SATs are useless predictors of ability, at least when it comes to comparing a set of white people to a set of black people?
Sounds like you would believe these policies absolutely necessary since the test scores do not reflect ability. By the way, the fact that you take a hypothesis with weak direct evidence and then apply it to policy clearly shows this issue is about politics for you. I wish you would, now and forever, clearly indicate that your stake in this issue is about policy and not science.
Also, now and in the future, please post a link to Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s Wikipedia page as your signature. Another “great scientist misunderstood and put down by the establishment” who sought to turn weak evidence into public policy.
You keep playing the same game, bobbing and weaving back and forth between “proof” and “facts and evidence” as fits your fancy.
My position was and has been that you need facts and evidence if a theory should be taken seriously at all. But you can’t be challenged for “proof” unless you’re asserting that the theory has in fact been conclusively proven.
This is very straightforward. I am not going to keep dancing with you.
Semantic avoidance bullshit that ignores any non-conclusive sense of the word “proof”. Is your name Humpty Dumpty?* I* wasn’t the one who inerted the “conclusive” in there. Proof *is *evidence.
That would make, what, three of you? We’ll see how long that lasts.
YOU accusing someone else of semantic bullshit? Now THAT is rich. Ha!
But evidence may or may not be “proof”.
You arguing otherwise, while professing to be a man of science, is pretty damn funny. Fotheringay-Phipps made the precise point I was making, which he is, of course correct about. You may want to reread the past few pages and absorb the ignorance-fighting light that has been sent for you to bathe in.
Now, quick, offer up another childish game of making believe that there is any confusion with “correlation”. Let MrDibble’s Super Semantics Games recommence.
Look, it’s Mr Don’t-Know-The-Meaning-Of-The-Word-Correlation, everybody!:smack: And *he *wants to play the semantic Humpty Dumpty too…
True, in a way. Only evidence that helps to establish the validity of a statement is proof. *Useless *evidence isn’t proof.
Are you actually claiming the evidence available is of the latter, useless, sort? :dubious:That’s an … unusual… debate tactic. But if you must.
Says the man who can’t calculate a simple r value…
So I guess neither of you are actually “done” with this, are you? And you seriously think that you’re lined up for some sort of tag-teaming? It makes me laugh. Heh. There, I laughed.
And no, you’re both wrong.
Gigo,** Inbred mm**, Belowjob, **tom **and others *have *been doing good work, you’re right. Pity the ignorance seems to be wearing SPF∞.
If there wasn’t confusion, you’d have provided some actual proof by now. “I know a Black when I see one, by his dark skin and frizzy hair” isn’t *quite *it -see “Evidence, useless” above.
Oh, cute, you’re trying out a new catchphrase to ride into the ground? Must admit, I much preferred “You and I are done”…but I guess it didn’t take with the test audiences?
Did you actually read the cite, out of curiosity? It’s 2005; not 30 years old. I’m wondering if you are willing to educate yourself on both sides of the fence, or if you just want to comfort yourself by reading opinions and then telling me how I don’t understand how science has “advanced.” Which advancement in science explains a non-gene pool reason for differences in skillsets outcomes among SIRE groups? Which advancement in science says average gene pools do not differ by SIRE groups? Which advancement in science says evolution affects only genes coding for “superficial” characteristics?
And publication is not an imprimatur of agreement by peers who review a publication. It is however, reasonable evidence that a summary research being presented is not discredited.
I’ve seen you post editorial opinions about “racist” conclusions. I haven’t seen you post cites with counter studies.
And see; that’s the thing. Those who cry “racist” don’t have studies. What they have are criticisms of “racist” studies. Instead of correcting a nurturing variable and showing how well a previously under-performing group now does, they just cry foul about existing studies showing no amount of nurturing closes this persistent pattern. The reason is that the gaps cannot be closed by nurturing.
Therefore all that’s left for the egalitarian crowd is to cry “racist.” iiandyiiii applies it to conclusions even in advance of any scientific study at all. This may be socially correct, but it’s a very telling sign of how he approaches science.
Bull, as others have posted counter studies, somehow you do think that just taking a poster like me apart (with a very weak effort) will justify your willful omission of what others posted.
They have many studies. Apparently you have never read them. Most scientists I know are interested in all ideas related to their phenomenon of interest. It’s part of being objective. Again, which studies that test “nurture” hypotheses do you think report compelling evidence supporting their hypothesis?
I am impressed with the balls you exhibit here considering the kind of evidence that convinces you. Also, the gap seems to be closing on its own.
Says the guy who suggested social policy decisions need to take into account his poorly supported view. Do you feel a hypothesis that is met with as much contention as the one you propose, that has such poor evidence supporting it should really influence social policy decisions? Do you really believe that is a good application of scientific information?
I think you’re picking and choosing what you want to believe. Stereotype threat does have an effect and it equally affects white students in athletics. There’s also another study where white students performed worse with a black coaches but I can’t find it, though will look further if you’re interested.
I disagree. IMO, the U.S government collects information on ethnicity as a means to suppress minority votes through gerrymandering; it also provides the majority of a blueprint of where location of minorities allowing the majority partition themselves to demographics rather than the location. There is no reason why the U.S government or private corporations need to collect information on race.
Wrong. :rolleyes: I even provided the dictionary definition. And then you go on to play your semantic games. Two people have called you on this nonsense. I have zero interest in another episode of MrDibble’s Super Semantics Games.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
[QUOTE=magellan01]
But evidence may or may not be “proof”.
[/QUOTE]
True, in a way.
[/QUOTE]
No. What I wrote is true in every way. Not “a” way, EVERY way. Here it is again: "evidence may or may not be “proof.” I challenge you to disprove the validity and correctness of that statement. Did Mr. Man of Science skip class when they went over such rudimentary things like sets and subsets? My "Evidence may or may not be “proof” is a 100% factual statement. 100%. Write it down for future reference.
On the other hand, this follow-up statement of yours falls considerably short of that 100% mark:
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Only evidence that helps to establish the validity of a statement is proof. *Useless *evidence isn’t proof.
[/QUOTE]
As is your habit, you conflate evidence and proof. And it appears that you might not even know the meaning of the words. Here, I’ll break it down for you.
Any information that goes to establishing the validity of a statement is evidence. That which does it well is strong evidence. That which does not do it well is weak evidence. If it does not help in any way, it is not evidence at all. It might be a data point, but nothing else.
Evidence that is so strong that it removes all doubt and makes the statement a certainty, rises to the level of proof. At that point, no other evidence is needed. The particular question has been answered. The correctness of the statement has been…get ready for it…proven. Period.
Additionally, your statement is also incorrect due to the fact that for any evidence to rise to the level of PROOF, it doesn’t merely “help to establish the validity of an argument”, it “establishes”; it removes all doubt concerning the particular argument. That is the threshold it must cross in order to be considered “proof”, as opposed to even really really strong “evidence”.
It really is truly astounding that you, a supposed scientist, have such a poor grasp of these concepts.
You, as has been mentioned now numerous times, will entertain no evidence unless it rises to the level of proof. Given the way you conflate the two, as per what I quoted, that’s not surprising. Is that something you do throughout your days doing science? Or only when the subject makes you uncomfortable?
But you know what, we may simply not agree on this, so I have an idea that might help: why not show the last page or so of this thread to your boss, someone who is a bonafide scientist? Or simply someone whose qualifications you feel are above reproach, and may even surpass your own.
Which *supports *my assertion that you “correlations” are bullshit.
Or have you worked out an r value for “Blackness” vs hair curl yet?
Or even just laid out what “Blackness” is?
Asking for you to provide some meagre statistical backing for your racial “correlations” isn’t semantics. It’s called “science”, which may not be too familiar to someone of the school of “I knows a Black By His Frizzy Hair” (such great company you keep), but there you are.
You keep saying that, and yet, here you are still …
And? Two people (Two! Wow! A whole two!) whose opinions I should care about because…?
Do you not at any point stop and think about the patent absurdity of applying set theory to rhetoric?
Or stop and consider that “a” is a subset of “every”, if you didn’t do that.
Please, Mr “I Love The Dictionary”, do me a favour and look up the dictionary definition of “evidence” Here, I’'l help you, these are (your much-ballyhooed First!) definitions from two dictionaries I have to hand:
1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof:
*I’m *not conflating jackshit.
Says the guy who can’t do elementary statistics…
You can, of course, cite where I said that? Or is this just you being psychic?
First, feel free to add your own tag lines and links to your own posts…
To your core questions (I think).
If you want to believe that SAT scores don’t reflect ability or predict success, I’m sure you’ll be happy to drag out studies that make that sort of implication.
It’s a silly mistake, though, to take an inference from “SATs and succes in College” or the like and make a broader conclusion about the correlation between a test-taking skillset and performance in the real world. Let me give you an example from my specialty, Medicine, to help you understand this better.
Those of us in Medicine, especially specialty areas, are tested to death. We’re the ones who aced grade school and eventually the admissions tests to get. Then assorted specialty exams. While we were tromping along in our training, the folks who were B+ High Schoolers were out starting businesses and getting rich. I get that. A test taking skillset is neither a guarantee of success nor is a crummy score a guarantee of failure in life. And a zillion things besides test scores affect one’s ability to be an effective member of society–for that matter, even an effective physician.
But it’s not as simple as just ignoring test scores, either, and that’s where policy and SIRE group differences come in. For high-intellect pursuits (Law, Medicine e.g.) we have made a determination that the skillset for achieving a high score is very predictive of the ability to master material, and mastering that material is necessary–though not sufficient–to be competent. And while the occasional poor scorer still makes an effective generalist of some kind, the average thing that happens is that kids with crappy admit scores either barely get through med school and don’t make it into the higher echelons or else they crap out during med school.
Right now, the average MCAT score for a black physician is woefully below the average MCAT score for an asian physician. So what should a med school do when they are looking over scores? What should a College do with the SAT? What should a medical residency program with the end-of-med-school licensing exam score?
As I’ve pointed out, looking at SES as a reason for crappy scores doesn’t work. If I want black students at my University or Law or Med School or Residency program, I cannot look at opportunity in order to smooth out the ranks for inclusion. High scoring blacks come from tiers of high opportunity, but their scores are still terrible compared with their opportunity peer group.
If I want a world where self-identified groups all get a share of the social success pie, I have to make a special consideration for just being “black” because at all opportunity levels, that group is going to score substantially lower than other groups. At some point the argument of past injustice as an inclusion reason runs out. If it’s the case that different groups are differently enabled because of their gene pool, I can make an accommodation for that indefinitely.
This is not about “politics.” It’s about policy. Right now Fisher v UTexas is running around in the courts. UTexas’ basic problem is that if they do not specially identify blacks as a category, the only black students they can get are the ones who are in the top ten percent of their schools. This leaves out the best black candidates. The best black candidates come from high SES circles and are not typically trapped into those schools. But their scores–high SES notwithstanding–are abysmal compared with their high SES peers. As I’ve pointed out ad nauseum, black children from wealthy and educated families woefully underscore other SIRE groups in the same SES category.
No school really believes quantitative exams are irrelevant. Ivy League schools are not going to suddenly start thinking they can generate a high-quality student body by ignoring test scores. And in any case, it’s not just the SAT, LSAT, MCATs or the like. It’s every test across every situation across every political boundary. The pattern is stubborn and persistent. Ricci v DeStefano-type conundrums are in every single place of employment across the country, and always for the same reason: a stubbornly persistent pattern of poorer performance on a skillset exam, even if the exam is vetted for “cultural bias”; even if the material is confined to a specific set; even if all takers have identical opportunity to master the material…no-one has been able to nurture us out of this pattern.
Indeed (and back to the “racist” discussion here), EEOC law is written in such a way as to a priori establish a screening exam as prejudicial if the outcome is disproportionate for a SIRE group. This is a bizarre example of bad science creating bad policy. There will come a day when some bright reject decides the NBA and NFL must be discriminating against whites, because whites are not proportionately represented there even though the starting pool (i.e. the number of participants actively involved in basketball at an early age) is overwhelmingly white. The real reason for the disproportionate representation in sports is that the average gene pools are different, cultural protestations to the contrary. So it is with test-taking skillsets. We are not all wired the same, we do not all come from the same average gene pool, and there are sound scientifically-based reasons why our gene pools clump by our SIRE associations.
I won’t try to talk you out of stereotype threat. If you think self-identifying a SIRE group makes you forget the right answer on an exam because you are in too much of a panic over remembering you aren’t supposed to do well, have at it.
I do have a suggestion: Why not just identify yourself as asian? That way the scheming US government will get its effort to suppress minorities completely thwarted, and as a side benefit you will achieve a much higher score now that you have identified yourself with a high-scoring group!
Problem solved.
Be aware of one drawback: If the test you are taking is part of a competency evaluation, your peer group will suddenly change, so make absolutely sure you score vastly higher once you get rid of the stereotype threat that made you forget all those correct answers. For example, on the Medical College Admissions Test, about 50% of asian applicants scored 30 or higher, while only about 10% of black applicants scored 30 or higher. Stereotype threat, low teacher expectations, crummy parenting, etc etc. Get lumped in with them asians and you are going to have a much rougher go of getting admitted to med school, score-wise.
PS: You may find it irrelevant, but most of the various exams administered all throughout the country for either academics or workplace do not require SIRE group identification. This does not alter the pattern.
But I have never done that. Could you provide a cite? Here’s the quote of your last iteration of advocating for policy based on a poorly supported theory:
You’re the one that was writing about African-American students who did well in school and come from successful backgrounds. Imagine how frustrating it would be to be so incredibly successful and then have some guy come along and judge you entirely upon your skin color and SAT score. I mean, they’re successful right? They have education, money, ambition and they work hard…true?
In my own experience, medical schools value a lot more than MCAT scores, and many average performers are accepted into medical school because they have a good enough MCAT score and have showed a competency for the discipline in their activities. If it’s good enough for them it’s good enough for me.
Good, you admit that you want policy to be shaped on the pathetic case made for the “nature” argument. Congratulations on admitting you’re little different from that other noted medical professional.
