Does Science Always Self-Correct?

@wildgrass said
Because they are lazy Americans?

It is well established that training at altitude improves aerobic capacity. Also there are known genetic components.

Sure.

Environment... plus genetics.

The fact of the matter is that two people who are professional marathon runners that have ten children will be far more likely to produce good distance running children than me and my significant other, even if we move to high altitudes and try to train our kids to be as such.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You haven't posted any interesting direct quotes that support your position.

Why not try that.

@philokalia said
Sure.

Environment... plus genetics.

The fact of the matter is that two people who are professional marathon runners that have ten children will be far more likely to produce good distance running children than me and my significant other, even if we move to high altitudes and try to train our kids to be as such.

Remind me again what any of this has to do with the self-corrective ability of "science"?

@wildgrass said
Remind me again what any of this has to do with the self-corrective ability of "science"?

Because science does everything that it can to maintain the political norm that there are no inherent cognitive differences between the races, and rather seeks to explain them away through a variety of often pseudo-scientific explanations that completely ignore the impact of genes on a person. Yet, such a starting point does not actually make sense considering that genes go a long way in terms of other aspects of our life -- like our health and physicality.

And, even here, there are "scientists" who obscure this because they understand what might potentially be coming down the line from that.

@humy said
Factual.

Just some of the vast mountain of evidence for evolution;
http://www.0095.info
/en/index_thesesen_95onesentencethesesagainste_missinglinks.html

https://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

http://www.windows2universe.org/cool_stuff/tour_evolution_3.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.ht ...[text shortened]... , Instead of Just 4..."

Well, these scientists didn't have a problem with giving DNA "new parts".

03 Irreducible complex systems

You don't believe there are such things I take it?
If we find a different system that is doesn't have all the parts of another that proves something?

@kellyjay said

If we find a different system that is doesn't have all the parts of another that proves something?

if in natural biology, yes; it proves irreducible complexity theory wrong and confirms evolution theory.

@philokalia said
Because science does everything that it can to maintain the political norm that there are no inherent cognitive differences between the races, and rather seeks to explain them away through a variety of often pseudo-scientific explanations that completely ignore the impact of genes on a person. Yet, such a starting point does not actually make sense considering that genes g ...[text shortened]... " who obscure this because they understand what might potentially be coming down the line from that.

You're ignoring an entire scientific field. Geneticists study the impact of genes on people. Maybe I missed it in your article. What's the evidence that there are cognitive differences between races that are genetically causative? Are you saying there's a scientific conspiracy to suppress the "real" data linking skin color to neuron function?

@Philokalia

Eventually.

@philokalia said
Because science does everything that it can to maintain the political norm that there are no inherent cognitive differences between the races, and rather seeks to explain them away through a variety of often pseudo-scientific explanations that completely ignore the impact of genes on a person. Yet, such a starting point does not actually make sense considering that genes g ...[text shortened]... " who obscure this because they understand what might potentially be coming down the line from that.

There is no conspiracy to "maintain the political norm" - you're just a racist.

@humy said
if in natural biology, yes; it proves irreducible complexity theory wrong and confirms evolution theory.

How do you define irreducible complexity?

@wildgrass said
You're ignoring an entire scientific field. Geneticists study the impact of genes on people. Maybe I missed it in your article. What's the evidence that there are cognitive differences between races that are genetically causative? Are you saying there's a scientific conspiracy to suppress the "real" data linking skin color to neuron function?

Geneticists study genes -- and they do so broadly. It is a very highly contentious field and it's absolutely full of controversy.

Much of it involves the study of genes in terms of health, and thus it does not deal with quantifying the polygenetic influences on intellignece.

Some neuroscientists are doing that, though, like Stephen Pinker, who in his book The Better Angels very plainly laid out across several pages that genes affect our intelligence.

The Wikipedia will even say that -- and Wikipedia is no den of conservatism.

---

Is there a "conspiracy?" No, if you go back to the very original post here, it's about the intrinsic biases that we have because of our culture and understanding of the world. We turn away from these hard questions, and we seek alternative explanations than the most obvious ones.

We have a weird assumption that we are all born as blank slates and that everyone has equal cognitive potential.

But imagine the absurdity of saying that every boy born in 1963 had the possibility to become Michael Jordan.

@kazetnagorra said
There is no conspiracy to "maintain the political norm" - you're just a racist.

That's really pithy -- consider my feelings hurt, bra.

Ya gotta put this one in your highlight reel.