The 0.01 g/ml difference means a 13% difference from the baseline, which I count as a big difference. The average body densities of both whites and blacks would be enough to cause them to sink, and a key point would be that taking in a breath of air would cause a typical person to decrease his or her body density enough to float. But, both body densities and lung sizes of each race would follow normal distributions. When you change the average even just a small amount, it has a large relative effect on the magnitudes of the tail ends. Both greater body density of blacks and smaller lung size of blacks combined would mean the minority of blacks who can not float after taking in a normal breath of air would be much larger than the minority of whites who cannot float after taking in a normal breath of air. I don't know the standard deviations and I don't know how the typical breath size differs by race, so I can't conclusively prove the point yet, but I think it is enough to doubt the longstanding assumption.
You say, "People's ability to swim is very, very loosely correlated to their density, if at all." The dependent variable is the drowning probability, not the ability to swim. I think of the psychological ability to swim (A) as an independent variable, the body density (Rho) as another independent variable, and the drowning probability (D) as the dependent variable. Increased body density Rho can plausibly decrease A among the races, but that is not my assumption. We can assume that A is roughly equal between whites and blacks. So, Rho - A = D. In this equation, D is a function of both A and Rho. if you decrease A, then you increase D. If you increase Rho, then you increase D.
A strong correlation, no doubt about it. It isn't a 100% correlation, and it would have to be 100% to push out body density. If psychological swimming ability was the only relevant variable, then we can ignore basic physics, but physics matters whether we like it or not.
Au contraire. Since swimming ability has little correlation with density the correlation totally obliterates the effect.
The point that they are two independent variables would make a difference. Think of it this way. There are two four-year-old children, and these two children have an equal swimming ability (A), but they each have different body densities (Rho). They both accidentally fall in a swimming pool. Which child is more likely to drown? If they both have high swimming ability, then each of their odds of drowning are small, but the child with high Rho still has a much higher chance of drowning. And, suppose that each child has low A, then both children have high D, but the child with high Rho has a MUCH higher D, lacking the advantage in both A and Rho. A does not "overwhelm" Rho, even if A has a much higher coefficient than Rho. Rho makes a big difference, one way or the other.
Oh. it just keeps getting better.ApostateAbe said:
OK, so you are going to double down on the absurdity by assuming no correlation between 'ability to swim' and 'drowning probability'. That's not going to convince anyone.
Perhaps if you throw in some Greek letters it will sound more 'sciencey'.
Your argument is bullshit upon bullshit. It is fucking laughable, and I have already given you far too much credit by addressing it as though it was worth the effort to debunk.
Go away, and take your pseudoscientific crap with you. Nobody's buying your snake oil.
I think that is a good point. I don't know the standard deviation, and if it is sufficiently large then it would disprove the case (though I would not depend on anecdotes as disproof).
