Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Happy Wonderer · 10-07-2002, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by a misguided cretinist:

The most significant difference between these races is: -
(a) language
(b) hair and facial features
(c) skin colour....

Language???!! This has got to be a parody, right? A little reflection shows the intellectual bankruptcy of this article. How many of us in the U.S. had great-grandparents that didn't speak English?

HW

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer ]

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer ]

MBR · 10-08-2002, 07:37 AM

Quote:

1. The term intelligence is far too broad to be dealt with in overly simplistic intelligence tests. Check back on some previous threads to see how contentious the issue is. In short, IQ tests are anything but.

Arguing that a measure of cognitive ability doesn't exist is especially ignorant in the face of the data presented in the book. But I will simply ask why you believe this?

Quote:

2. Correlation does not prove causality....
No no no, of course not. It�s the most basic of statistical principles easily the most frequent statistical mistake made, and one which the Bell Curve goofs as well.

That is just a strawman. Nowhere do the authors try to claim causality. They simply point to the current stratification of measured cognitive ability along racial lines. It is painfully obvious how unfamiliar with the book you are, otherwise you would have known this. Try looking at the book instead of reading the unfounded and unscientific attacks of its detractors.

Quote:

Did the Bell Curve compensate for culture ? Did the Bell Curve compensate for socio-economic background ? Did the Bell Curve explore causal possibilities other than race ? No.

In fact, yes they did. They went to great lengths to assure this. Again, you obviously are arguing from some prior belief instead of actually looking at the work. Your fallacy is that you haven't read the book. If you had, you would have read that Hernstein and Murray attributed as much as 40% of cognitive ability to environment and the rest to genetic endowment.

Quote:

For a more detailed analysis on the Bell Curve, check :

Perhaps you should leave the analysis alone and read it yourself.

Happy Wonderer · 10-08-2002, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MBR:

... If you had, you would have read that Hernstein and Murray attributed as much as 40% of cognitive ability to environment and the rest to genetic endowment.

Riiight. Glad we got that old "nature VS nurture" question whipped. Time for the social scientists to close up shop, I guess.

Think for a second. If we are truly measuring some sort of innate cognitive ability (whatever that is...) how come people can improve their scores on intelligence tests by practice? Are they making themselves smarter, or are they simply getting better at taking tests? How would we design an experiment to determine that?

HW

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.