Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    24 Jun '19 06:22
    @philokalia said
    That's really pithy -- consider my feelings hurt, bra.

    Ya gotta put this one in your highlight reel.
    It is possibly his psychological projection. He defended segregation as school choice on the debates forum for some weird reason. As if black students had more choice when Biden voted for segregation.
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52874
    24 Jun '19 13:51
    @metal-brain said
    It is possibly his psychological projection. He defended segregation as school choice on the debates forum for some weird reason. As if black students had more choice when Biden voted for segregation.
    Biden does have a bit to overcome if he wants the black vote. Time will tell if he can bring them around if he is the nominee. I think Trump will love a Trump/Biden contest. Sorry, I digress.
  3. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    24 Jun '19 16:42
    @philokalia said
    That's really pithy -- consider my feelings hurt, bra.

    Ya gotta put this one in your highlight reel.
    It's an observation, not an insult. That there is no biological basis for race is scientific fact, not a conspiracy against racists such as yourself.

    Read more:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
  4. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7578
    24 Jun '19 19:492 edits
    @philokalia said
    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 [i ...[text shortened]... e absurdity of saying that every boy born in 1963 had the possibility to become Michael Jordan. [/i]
    I haven't read Dr. Pinker's work, but maybe a quote would better illustrate your point. Certainly he would not argue that there was a genetic linkage between predicted intelligence and race? By what mechanism?

    I didn't say it wasn't contentious. It is a robust and active area of scientific research [see ref]. You proclaimed earlier that "science... ignores the influence of genes on a person" as rationale for the lack of evidence for whatever it is you're trying to argue. This is obviously false. There are hundreds of experts in the field. The contention exists not because of a "weird assumption" among scientists but because intelligence is complicated, and intrinsically probabilistic (i.e. not highly predictive).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5985927/
  5. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    23080
    26 Jun '19 04:15
    @wildgrass said
    I haven't read Dr. Pinker's work, but maybe a quote would better illustrate your point. Certainly he would not argue that there was a genetic linkage between predicted intelligence and race? By what mechanism?

    I didn't say it wasn't contentious. It is a robust and active area of scientific research [see ref]. You proclaimed earlier that "science... ignores the influence ...[text shortened]... probabilistic (i.e. not highly predictive).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5985927/
    It'd be polygenetic.
    For pinker specifically

    Once the measurements are made, the variance of the sample may be calculated: the average squared deviation of each person's score from the group mean. The variance is a number that captures the degree to which the members of a group differ from one another. (&hellip😉 It is mathematically meaningful to say that a certain percentage of the variance in a group overlaps with one factor (perhaps, though not necessarily, its cause), another percentage with a second factor, and so on, the percentages adding up to 100. The degree of overlap may be measured as a correlation coefficient, a number between -1 and +1 that captures the degree to which people who are high on one measurement are also high on another measurement. (8) (&hellip😉
    Heritability is the proportion of variance in a trait that correlates with genetic differences. It can be measured in several ways. (21) The simplest is to take the correlation between identical twins who were separated at birth and reared apart. (&hellip😉 Alternatively, one can compare identical twins reared together, who share all their genes and most of their environment, with fraternal twins reared together, who share half their genes and most of their environment. (&hellip😉 The bigger the difference between the two correlations, the higher the heritability estimate. Yet another technique is to compare biological siblings, who share half their genes and most of their environment, with adoptive siblings, who share none of their genes (among those that vary) and most of their environment.

    Results:

    The results come out roughly the same no matter what is measured or how it is measured. Identical twins reared apart are highly similar; identical twins reared together are more similar than fraternal twins reared together; biological siblings are far more similar than adoptive siblings. (1,2,3,10,19,21) All this translates into substantial heritability values, generally between .25 and .75. A conventional summary is that about half the variation in intelligence, personality, and life outcomes is heritable – a correlate or an indirect product of the genes. It's hard to be much more precise than that, because heritability values vary within this range for a number of reasons. (21)

    (Please refer to the book or some other source to learn about those reasons.)

    (&hellip😉

    The heritability of intelligence, for example, increases over the lifespan, and can be as high as .8 late in life. (14,22) Forget "As the twig is bent"; think "Omigod, I'm turning into my parents!"
    https://sebscogblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/steven-pinkers-account-of-evidence.html?m=1

    .... But in general, you can even just visit the Wikipedia for the heritability of intelligence.
  6. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7578
    26 Jun '19 14:25
    @philokalia said
    It'd be polygenetic.
    For pinker specifically

    Once the measurements are made, the variance of the sample may be calculated: the average squared deviation of each person's score from the group mean. The variance is a number that captures the degree to which the members of a group differ from one another. (&hellip😉 It is mathematically meaningful to say that a certain percenta ...[text shortened]...

    .... But in general, you can even just visit the Wikipedia for the heritability of intelligence.
    Some of your language is fuzzy, but the gist is that you cannot predict intelligence based on race.
  7. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    23080
    26 Jun '19 21:58
    Pinker believes IQ tests are valid.

    IQ tests show different races have different IQs. Radically so.

    The results of IQ are mostly inherited biological traits...

    Therefore, what would Pinker believe?

    And, of course, we know why he doesn't say it.
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    26 Jun '19 22:433 edits
    @wildgrass said
    I haven't read Dr. Pinker's work, but maybe a quote would better illustrate your point. Certainly he would not argue that there was a genetic linkage between predicted intelligence and race? By what mechanism?

    I didn't say it wasn't contentious. It is a robust and active area of scientific research [see ref]. You proclaimed earlier that "science... ignores the influence ...[text shortened]... probabilistic (i.e. not highly predictive).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5985927/
    (Wildgrass replied to Philokalia.)

    Steven Pinker's an extremely controversial figure (at best), who has been widely
    condemned and certainly does not deserve unqualified reverence.

    While he's embraced by the Western political right-wing, Steven Pinker has been strongly
    criticized for distorting science to serve his political agenda and simply being wrong.

    Here's one of many criticisms:

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/transformation/steven-pinker-s-ideas-are-fatally-flawed-these-eight-graphs-show-why/

    "Pinker is, after all, an intellectual darling of the most powerful echelons of global society.
    He spoke to the world’s elite this year at the World’s Economic Forum in Davos
    on the perils of what he calls “political correctness,” and has been named
    one of Time magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in the World Today.”
    Since his work offers an intellectual rationale for many in the elite to continue practices
    that imperil humanity, it needs to be met with a detailed and rigorous response."
  9. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    23080
    26 Jun '19 23:45
    @duchess64 said
    (Wildgrass replied to Philokalia.)

    Steven Pinker's an extremely controversial figure (at best), who has been widely
    condemned and certainly does not deserve unqualified reverence.

    While he's embraced by the Western political right-wing, Steven Pinker has been strongly
    criticized for distorting science to serve his political agenda and simply being wrong.

    Here's ...[text shortened]... ntinue practices
    that imperil humanity, it needs to be met with a detailed and rigorous response."
    You have just used some leftist website to attack Pinker for being right wing, but the reality is that he is a Jewish intellectual who believes that scientific progress is largely going to be the salvation of mankind & has believed in a consistent moral evolution. He is also an atheist, and has little love for traditional society....

    I do not see how any of that a conservative doth make.

    Moreover, you did not attack any of the ideas that Pinker has on the science -- on the topic of this thread.

    Do you have any feedback on that, Duchess?
  10. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    27 Jun '19 00:133 edits
    @philokalia said
    You have just used some leftist website to attack Pinker for being right wing, but the reality is that he is a Jewish intellectual who believes that scientific progress is largely going to be the salvation of mankind & has believed in a consistent moral evolution. He is also an atheist, and has little love for traditional society....

    I do not see how any of that a conse ...[text shortened]... on the science -- on the topic of this thread.

    Do you have any feedback on that, Duchess?
    With his typical dishonesty, Philokalia pretends there's only one critic of Steven Pinker.
    In reality, many scholars have pointed out Steven Pinker's major ignorance or distortion of history.

    https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/17/17362548/pinker-enlightenment-now-two-cultures-rationality-war-debate

    "Steven Pinker’s new book on the Enlightenment is a huge hit. Too bad it gets the Enlightenment wrong."

    "A key flashpoint is the surprisingly intense conflict between Steven Pinker, the
    Harvard cognitive psychologist and author of the widely discussed Enlightenment
    Now, and scholars in history, English, and philosophy departments — like me —
    who study the period professionally."

    "Pinker portrays Enlightenment scholars who criticize Enlightenment Now as
    “cultural pessimists” averse to “Western civilization,” but this is hyperbolic and mostly wrong."

    It's hyperbolic right-wing propaganda lapped up by the likes of Philokalia.

    "David A. Bell, a Princeton historian of Enlightenment France, has observed that
    “since [Pinker] does not engage in any serious analysis of Enlightenment authors,
    he avoids having to contend seriously with the awkward fact that by far the most
    popular of them, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, was a fierce critic of most forms of progress.”"

    "These criticisms of Enlightenment Now are far from hand-waving, counter-Enlightenment
    lunacy; they’re reasonable points made by knowledgeable professionals about what
    one needs to prove to give a convincing account of the impact of the Enlightenment."

    Steven Pinker is a poor (misleading or dishonest) 'historian' of the Enlightenment.

    When will Philokalia resume quoting his favorite scientists who supposedly have
    used IQ tests to 'prove' white supremacy in intelligence?
  11. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    23080
    27 Jun '19 01:18
    @duchess64 said
    With his typical dishonesty, Philokalia pretends there's only one critic of Steven Pinker.
    In reality, many scholars have pointed out Steven Pinker's major ignorance or distortion of history.

    https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/17/17362548/pinker-enlightenment-now-two-cultures-rationality-war-debate

    "Steven Pinker’s new book on the Enlightenment is a huge hit. To ...[text shortened]... s favorite scientists who supposedly have
    used IQ tests to 'prove' white supremacy in intelligence?
    Um, Duchess, in the last post, I asked you to discuss the statements that Stephen Pinker made. He is a neuroscientist, that is his discipline, after all...

    I do not dispute the fact that he has gotten it a bit wrong in some of the more general writing he has done. Of course he is not an expert on the Enlightenment or on many other things. He's just taking a stab at the history of it.

    But here he is an expert.

    You also cannot dispute the fact that he isn't some far right nutter at all.

    Would you like to get on the topic and talk about what the neuroscientist has said about intelligence, or do you want to keep posting criticisms of what the neuroscientist said about the Enlightnemnet?
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    27 Jun '19 03:132 edits
    @philokalia said
    Um, Duchess, in the last post, I asked you to discuss the statements that Stephen Pinker made. He is a neuroscientist, that is his discipline, after all...

    I do not dispute the fact that he has gotten it a bit wrong in some of the more general writing he has done. Of course he is not an expert on the Enlightenment or on many other things. He's just taking a stab at the ...[text shortened]... , or do you want to keep posting criticisms of what the neuroscientist said about the Enlightnemnet?
    "Do you want to keep posting criticisms of what the neuroscientist said about the Enlightnemnet (sic)?"
    --Philokalia

    No one compelled Steven Pinker to write a history book about the Enlightenment.
    No one compelled him to boast that he's right and his scholarly critics are wrong about it.

    "You also cannot dispute the fact that he [Steven Pinker] isn't some far right nutter at all."
    --Philokalia

    'Far right nutter'? It takes one to know one, I suppose.
    I don't believe that Steven Pinker's as dishonest, hateful, or deranged as Philokalia himself.

    "In January 2005, Pinker defended comments by then-President of Harvard University
    Lawrence Summers. Summers had commented that gender gaps in mathematics
    and science were due to "different availability of aptitude at the high end."[70][71]
    In a debate between Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke on gender and science, Pinker
    argued in favor of gender essentialism and stereotype accuracy."
    --Wikipedia

    Lawrence Summers was widely criticized for ignoring the reality that institutional sexism holds
    back and discourages women from pursuing careers in mathematics and science.

    Elizabeth Spelke is an American cognitive psychologist at the Department of Psychology
    of Harvard University and director of the Laboratory for Developmental Studies.
    "She defends the position that there is no scientific evidence of any significant
    disparity in the intellectual faculties of males and females.[3]"
    --Wikipedia

    In contrast, Steven Pinker apparently argues that there are major innate differences
    in intelligence between men and women (with men typically being superior).
  13. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    23080
    27 Jun '19 06:25
    In contrast, Steven Pinker apparently argues that there are major innate differences
    in intelligence between men and women (with men typically being superior).


    It is true that men have a greater diversity of IQs than women -- the evidence is plentiful and all available on the internet. Women tend to hug the centers of the IQ chart, while men are over represented in both extremes.

    ... Thanks for also bringing up that Pinker argued that there are innate gender differences. Wildgrass will now have more information at his fingertips indicating the essentialist & biodeterministic perspectives of Prof. Pinker.

    Do you have any arguments against his claims, Duchess? Or do you accept them as valid claims?

    Right now, you seem very, very obtuse because you are ignoring the actual content of the debate and just pretending that calling a thing sexist or racist constitutes enough of an argument to lay the issue to rest.
  14. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    27 Jun '19 08:07
    @philokalia said
    In contrast, Steven Pinker apparently argues that there are major innate differences
    in intelligence between men and women (with men typically being superior).


    It is true that men have a greater diversity of IQs than women -- the evidence is plentiful and all available on the internet. Women tend to hug the centers of the IQ chart, while men are ...[text shortened]... calling a thing sexist or racist constitutes enough of an argument to lay the issue to rest.
    Philokalia's eager to exploit or distort Steven Pinker to.serve.his
    racist, sexist, transphobic agenda.

    My point is that Steven Pinker's views are highly disputed, even in
    a field of his supposed expertise.
  15. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    23080
    27 Jun '19 08:21
    @duchess64 said
    Philokalia's eager to exploit or distort Steven Pinker to.serve.his
    racist, sexist, transphobic agenda.

    My point is that Steven Pinker's views are highly disputed, even in
    a field of his supposed expertise.
    Alright.

    Would you care to dispute his ideas? I quoted them earlier.

    You have done a lot of writing, but little of it has been on topic, and you have quoted him on other topics in hopes that they transfer over to this one.
Back to Top