Race, Intelligence, and Gould's variation of Pascal's Wager

[exodiasrightleg]

Nothing Abe has said is remotely as anti-reason, harmful, or offensive as you advocating him being banned for saying it.

Indeed, and I for one find it admirable how he continues to argue his case with logic and reason in the face of such hostility. I enjoy reading him even where I disagree with him. Same goes for others here with other unpopular opinions they like to argue for. Isn't that the whole point of a "Freethought" forum?

Politeness and civility =/= logic and reason. He's being polite, which's not the same thing as being reasonable. In fact, I would argue that racism is impolite by definition, as it's akin to starting a conversation with "You're a retarded subhuman!"

 

[ApostateAbe]

Indeed, and I for one find it admirable how he continues to argue his case with logic and reason in the face of such hostility. I enjoy reading him even where I disagree with him. Same goes for others here with other unpopular opinions they like to argue for. Isn't that the whole point of a "Freethought" forum?

Politeness and civility =/= logic and reason. He's being polite, which's not the same thing as being reasonable. In fact, I would argue that racism is impolite by definition, as it's akin to starting a conversation with "You're a retarded subhuman!"

That inference would depend on two wrong assumptions, I believe. (1) All members of a race have the same intelligence as their average, and (2) one's intelligence represents value as a human being. If you stated that you believed Down's Syndrome to be part biological and affects intelligence, would it follow that you are a despicable person? That you believe people with Down's Syndrome are subhuman? I don't think so. A popular ideology has strongly associated a plausible perspective of objective reality with the morals of Hitler, and I think we need to snap out of that. One's perspective of objective reality should not imply anything about one's morals.

 

[Unbeatable]

Indeed, and I for one find it admirable how he continues to argue his case with logic and reason in the face of such hostility. I enjoy reading him even where I disagree with him. Same goes for others here with other unpopular opinions they like to argue for. Isn't that the whole point of a "Freethought" forum?

Politeness and civility =/= logic and reason. He's being polite, which's not the same thing as being reasonable. In fact, I would argue that racism is impolite by definition, as it's akin to starting a conversation with "You're a retarded subhuman!"

I don't see how a rational understanding of Abe's actual claims* could equate to something like that. I guess you could be equivocating when you use the word "racism" here.

*(Intelligence varies witin populations. Intelligence is measurable. Intelligence is heritable. When those populations known as races are compared in terms of intelligence statistics, there can be seen differences in their average intelligence. These differences are mostly inherited.)

 

[fromderinside]

Correlations cannot be used demonstrate causality. Ergo results of correlation 'studies' are scientifically meaningless. Example: Oh look. the rings of Saturn correlate with how high dogs jump.

.... Correlations are an essential component for any case of causality. If you don't have at least one correlation as part of your case for causality, then you likely do not have a case for causality. Causality of some sort generally explains a correlation (unless it can be plausibly explained as purely random), and the difficulty is determining the direction of causality. If X correlates with Y, then maybe X causes Y, but maybe instead Y causes X, or maybe instead a third variable Z causes both X and Y. ...

So in what class of those which you propose does the rings of Saturn effect fit? Rings of Saturn when added to other variables always increases the relation of the sought correlation relative to significance. Its what happens when one increases the number of elements in multiple correlation set.

So you see my point is about more than whether correlation is something that is present in specifications of causality. The statistical form has functions. Establishing causality is not one of them.

 

[ApostateAbe]

.... Correlations are an essential component for any case of causality. If you don't have at least one correlation as part of your case for causality, then you likely do not have a case for causality. Causality of some sort generally explains a correlation (unless it can be plausibly explained as purely random), and the difficulty is determining the direction of causality. If X correlates with Y, then maybe X causes Y, but maybe instead Y causes X, or maybe instead a third variable Z causes both X and Y. ...

So in what class of those which you propose does the rings of Saturn effect fit? Rings of Saturn when added to other variables always increases the relation of the sought correlation relative to significance. Its what happens when one increases the number of elements in multiple correlation set.

So you see my point is about more than whether correlation is something that is present in specifications of causality. The statistical form has functions. Establishing causality is not one of them.

I don't know how to explain the proposed correlation between a dog's jump and the rings of Saturn unless you explain that function more fully (I really have no idea what you mean), but my tentative guess is randomness. If one or both variables is a time series, then it is easier to explain the correlation as mere randomness. If you don't think correlations belong in cases for causation, then maybe you should explain how you would prefer to go about making the case that smoking probably causes lung cancer. Or how to make the case that skin color is genetically heritable. Or how to make the case that tanning beds cause skin cancer. Or how to make the case that men tend to be taller than women due to genetics. If you think correlations have no place in scientific cases for causality, then maybe you can do it with pure chemistry, physics and DNA, and, if you can do it that way only, then you are a hero.

 

[exodiasrightleg]

Politeness and civility =/= logic and reason. He's being polite, which's not the same thing as being reasonable. In fact, I would argue that racism is impolite by definition, as it's akin to starting a conversation with "You're a retarded subhuman!"

I don't see how a rational understanding of Abe's actual claims* could equate to something like that. I guess you could be equivocating when you use the word "racism" here.

*(Intelligence varies witin populations. Intelligence is measurable. Intelligence is heritable. When those populations known as races are compared in terms of intelligence statistics, there can be seen differences in their average intelligence. These differences are mostly inherited.)

It's the same old, stupid, outdated, racist tripe, just dressed up with extra weasel words on top.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I don't see how a rational understanding of Abe's actual claims* could equate to something like that. I guess you could be equivocating when you use the word "racism" here.

*(Intelligence varies witin populations. Intelligence is measurable. Intelligence is heritable. When those populations known as races are compared in terms of intelligence statistics, there can be seen differences in their average intelligence. These differences are mostly inherited.)

It's the same old, stupid, outdated, racist tripe, just dressed up with extra weasel words on top.

What are the weasel words?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk