Nicholas Wade and the Reality of Race

[Cold Front]

These people seem confused as to what a law is

So why don't you clear it up for everyone? Stop leaving us in suspense.

 

[7437]

So why don't you clear it up for everyone? Stop leaving us in suspense.

A scientific law is an empirical (ie based on experimental evidence) statement of great generality of something which seems to always be true.

Welcome to the 8th grade.

http://www.grossmont.edu/johnoakes/s110online/Notes on Scientific Laws.doc.

 

[Cold Front]

A scientific law is an empirical (ie based on experimental evidence) statement of great generality of something which seems to always be true.

Welcome to the 8th grade.

http://www.grossmont.edu/johnoakes/s110online/Notes on Scientific Laws.doc.

Did you ever get out of the eighth grade?

When they say that every human trait is heritable, for example, how is that not an "empirical statement of great generality which seems to always be true."

Take your time answering that question, and go ahead and ask your teacher if you get stuck.

 

[Cold Front]

It's wrong to blame Wade for the speculative part of his book.

All social science is built on speculation about causes. For Wade to speculate that genetics is behind these social phenomena is no different than anyone else speculating that some aspect of the environment is behind them.

To use an example from this forum, anyone who talks about, say, how lead poisoning might have caused America's urban problems - like the increased violence and higher crime rates in the sixties, seventies, and eighties - is engaging in no different an intellectual exercise than Nicholas Wade engaged in.

Too many people here seem to assume that the null hypothesis should be that the environment is assigned primary responsibility for whatever happened in human history.

Hence, we see serious scholars speculating all the time about how institutions or culture or the energies of great men were responsible for the rise of the West or the East Asian catchup or the American Revolution or what have you. But obviously, these people are speculating about their topics every bit as much as Nicholas Wade is speculating about his. They have as little proof - and often far less - to demonstrate their theses.

 

[7437]

Did you ever get out of the eighth grade?

When they say that every human trait is heritable, for example, how is that not an "empirical statement of great generality which seems to always be true."

Take your time answering that question, and go ahead and ask your teacher if you get stuck.

Because not every human trait is heritable.

 

[Cold Front]

Because not every human trait is heritable.

Yes, they are.

Here is a good pr

 

[Grooboggle]

Do you believe in free will? And if so what is the source of free will?

You brought this up in another thread as well I believe.

You question is at best disingenuous. At worst shows no real understanding of the concept.

Very loosely if you believe in "free will" it is simply stating you hold people to be culpable for their actions. Everyone believes this and acts as if they do. I am more than certain you included.

If you are trying to equate free will to random, no one believes this or would argue it. Arguably though some behaviors certainly derive from reasons of such complexity that we can't currently model them or predict them and may never be able to. While there are certainly reasons for these behaviors they may not be knowable.

Pragmatically there is no one we wouldn't consider insane that doesn't believe and act as if there is free will.

 

[Grooboggle]

Yes, they are.

Here is a good pr

 

[Cold Front]

The last paragraph certainly can't be boiled down to being equivalent to your last statement.

I stated it fully and correctly the first time he tried to contradict it. And I linked to two sources which used the same language. So if I dropped the word "behavioral" in one sentence, he still had plenty of warning about what I was talking about.

 

[Cold Front]

As to my last source, yes, it can be boiled down to "all human behavioral traits are heritable."

 

[Grooboggle]

As to my last source, yes, it can be boiled down to "all human behavioral traits are heritable."

For one, heritability is only probabilistic, not absolute. Few traits are 100% heritable. As well, heritability, as estimated by these studies (even the new genomic ones) can only tell us that traits are correlated with genes.

Lol but not absolutely and likely with less certainty than the outcome of a poker hand.

Certainly not predictably heritable at this time.

 

[7437]

As to my last source, yes, it can be boiled down to "all human behavioral traits are heritable."

That is not what correlation means. and to quote your source "Heritability is only probabilistic, not absolute."

And we go back to what a "law" is and we get:A scientific law is an empirical (ie based on experimental evidence) statement of great generality of something which seems to always be true.

If you notice, laws seem to always be true. Your source clearly states heritability is not absolute. Try reading your own source next time.

 

[Cold Front]

For one, heritability is only probabilistic, not absolute. Few traits are 100% heritable. As well, heritability, as estimated by these studies (even the new genomic ones) can only tell us that traits are correlated with genes.

What has that got to do with the law that "all human behavioral traits are heritable"?

No one said that all human traits are 100 percent heritable.

But many people act as if their religious and political feelings, general personality characteristics, and career interests have nothing to do with their genes, and so it's important to point out that isn't true.

Lol but not absolutely and likely with less certainty than the outcome of a poker hand.

Certainly not predictably heritable at this time.

Great. So you understand Bayesian probabilities. Pat yourself on the back. And then realize that this has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

 

[Cold Front]

That is not what correlation means. and to quote your source "Heritability is only probabilistic, not absolute."

So what? Are you under the mistaken impression that laws are absolute? Do you think Newtonian laws of motion are absolute? Or would they be more, say, context-dependent?

Maybe you should ask Einstein about that. And then when you're done, talk to Heisenberg about the difficulties Einstein had with his ideas.

Sheesh.

And we go back to what a "law" is and we get: A scientific law is an empirical (ie based on experimental evidence) statement of great generality of something which seems to always be true.

Yes, like all human behavioral traits are heritable. For example, homophobia is more heritable than homosexuality, but both are heritable.

If you notice, laws seem to always be true. Your source clearly states heritability is not absolute. Try reading your own source next time.

I see. You're under the mistaken impression that laws are "absolute," like they're handed down from Moses or something.

 

[7437]

So what? Are you under the mistaken impression that laws are absolute? Do you think Newtonian laws of motion are absolute? Or would they be more, say, context-dependent?

Maybe you should ask Einstein about that. And then when you're done, talk to Heisenberg about the difficulties Einstein had with his ideas.

Sheesh.



Yes, like all human behavioral traits are heritable. For example, homophobia is more heritable than homosexuality.



Oh, "absolute" ! You're under the mistaken impression that laws are "absolute," like they're handed down from Moses or something.

And we will go back, again, to the same definition. Bolded for emphasis :A scientific law is an empirical (ie based on experimental evidence) statement of great generality of something which seems to always be true.

There are some questions as to how Newtons laws work in relation to quantum mechanics. Behavioral genetics is not even in the same league of certainty as that.

There is not a probability that newtons laws work every time, they do work every time. Test it, inertia is really easy to see. There is still room for study as to how inertia can work on quantum levels, but inertia is clearly still a real thing.

Behavioral genetics is a probability game at best. It is very clearly not a law. This is not that hard to grasp.

 

[Cold Front]

And we will go back, again, to the same definition. Bolded for emphasis :A scientific law is an empirical (ie based on experimental evidence) statement of great generality of something which seems to always be true.

Yes, in other words, it's NOT absolute.

That's true of both Newton's laws, and the law that all behavioral traits are heritable.

There are some questions as to how Newtons laws work in relation to quantum mechanics. Behavioral genetics is not even in the same league of certainty as that.

First, how would you know?

Second, what does it even mean to say laws aren't in the "same league"? If the law's definition is met ("...empirical...great generality...seems to always be true..."), it's a law. Period.

There is not a probability that newtons laws work every time, they do work every time. Test it, inertia is really easy to see.

No, they don't work every time. Which is what spurred Einstein on to his discoveries. Because Newton's laws were no longer working.

In other words, Newton's laws were not absolute. Get it?

Behavioral genetics is a probability game at best. It is very clearly not a law. This is not that hard to grasp.

The fact they're a probability game has nothing to do with the law, which doesn't mention probabilities.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

And we will go back, again, to the same definition. Bolded for emphasis :A scientific law is an empirical (ie based on experimental evidence) statement of great generality of something which seems to always be true.

There are some questions as to how Newtons laws work in relation to quantum mechanics. Behavioral genetics is not even in the same league of certainty as that.

There is not a probability that newtons laws work every time, they do work every time. Test it, inertia is really easy to see. There is still room for study as to how inertia can work on quantum levels, but inertia is clearly still a real thing.

Behavioral genetics is a probability game at best. It is very clearly not a law. This is not that hard to grasp.

If genetics is the rock and experience is the water then which determines the landscape? A rock can be a rock yet still be eroded into something else via outside influence.

That doesn't mean I believe anyone is predisposed to enjoy Motley Crue. Just that who we are as organisms is the foundation for our behavior.

 

[Cold Front]

It's funny listening to these guys talk about "probabilities" and "absolutes" ruling out any laws in behavioral genetics.

Have they never heard of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Einstein's comment that he did not believed God played dice with the universe?

 

[7437]

If genetics is the rock and experience is the water then which determines the landscape? A rock can be a rock yet still be eroded into something else via outside influence.

That doesn't mean I believe anyone is predisposed to enjoy Motley Crue. Just that who we are as organisms is the foundation for our behavior.

We certianly have a disposition towards certain behavior based on genetics, but an actual observable behavioral trait cannot be inherited, only predispositions.

For example, the behavioral trait of alcoholism runs in my family. Everyone loves to drink. I like it too. It does not however, force me to engage in the behavior. I do not drink, at all. The genetic predisposition is there, but the trait itself is absent. I did not inherit it, because there are too many other factors in behavior.

 

[7437]

If the law's definition is met ("...empirical...great generality...seems to always be true..."), it's a law. Period.



The fact they're a probability game has nothing to do with the law, which doesn't mention probabilities.

Do you see the error here? I tried to make it easy to spot.