So, if the body densities of drowning victims were greater on average as determined by postmortem measurements, only that can prove the point? That is respectable, though I think the existence of such data is unlikely. I expect such data is gathered only in murder investigations. The data that exists is apparently neither irrelevant nor anecdotal. Maybe 15% just isn't enough to be relevant, and it would have to be some higher value to be relevant. But, anecdotal?
Before it makes a difference to what? Drowning likelihood? Swimming ability? An unfit non-swimmer might experience some difficulty from a smaller increase than would remain negligible for a fit and able swimmer. There's no such percentage and the question assumes away the objections to the premise.
Before it starts to make a difference in drowning rates between the racial groups, to answer your question. Like, suppose bodies of black people on average had five times the densities of white people above water density. Would we expect to see a difference in drowning rates, or would the factor of body density still be eclipsed by the factor of psychological swimming ability?
Remember that I am not focusing on bone density. I listed three reasons for varying body densities of the races (bone density, muscle mass, and lung size). I did not include body fat, but that is another potential source. Regardless of the cause, I found that the racial difference in body densities is a confirmed fact, so that would be the most relevant data, not merely the bone densities. But, the body density would likely change from a death by drowning, so the measurement of those causal variables of body density like bone density may be the only option, and I think it is unlikely that such data would exist. If the cause of death is known to be drowning, then bone density data would not be of interest to any party related to the death, though it would be of interest to you and I.
Even that? Suppose we had an all-seeing eye and we could gather any data we like. What hypothetical data would finally make the hypothesis probable, in your opinion?
The point would be to either have a better understanding of the truth or to save lives from drowning. Specifically, what hypothetical data would convince you? It is a question I ask those with a dogma, to help bring awareness to the dogma.
Drowning is caused by someone swimming, his or her head going below the surface of the water and not coming back up. The rate of such a thing happening is very much physically expected to be in part a function of body density. It really isn't complicated. Yes, there are many other things that affect drowning probability, but none of those things are expected to reverse what is expected from physics.
They may have to be another species, not that speciation of humans is out of the realm of possibility. It could happen after migration to the moon or whatever, a world with low gravity. Would a five-fold density difference above the density of water make a difference in drowning rates, in your opinion? I expect the answer is yes. If yes, then take a rough guess at a more plausible lower limit. Like, 50% before it affects drowning rates the tiniest amount?
It would depend on the anatomy of these ultra-dense extraterrestrial "black people". Perhaps they've evolved webbed appendages, gills and suchlike. Then there's the paucity of water on the moon - difficult to drown at all. I'm gonna have to give this some serious thought.
There are plenty of other possibilities for phenotypic differences, but for now we can just assume that body density is the only change, everything else remaining the same. The purpose is to test whether or not the denial of the significance of the racial body density difference as it exists is rational or merely dogmatic.
No, the purpose is to throw in a daft sorites puzzle to distract from this:
never mind daft speculation about the unknowable, no one's playing, game over.
"Anyone who disagrees with my wild speculation is blinded by dogma" is what every crackpot says when backed into a corner.
