Neoteny wrote: BigBallinStalin wrote:
Neoteny wrote:I propose that everyone who has an interest in the scientific inquiry into intelligence or physiology of different "races" are all racist.
To be exempt from this: without using Google, please list three other areas of basic or applied research in the fields of psychology or physiology that you are as knowledgeable about.
I propose that anyone who has an interest in proving that someone is racist by using untenable exemptions is racist.
To be exempt from this: without using Google, please list three other areas of basic or applied research in the fields of Cyber Communications that you are as knowledgable about.
That's not really equivalent. If I were referencing cyber communications science to support my proposal for labeling racists, then it would be. But it's irrelevant, really. I considered using "biology" and "all science" as my categories too. I decided on specializing it for a reason. If I started a thread about the genesis and growth of Renshaw cells in the developing spinal cord, I might get a post or two of interest, and the thread will quickly fall off the page. But start a thread about something controversial, and suddenly people are impartial investigators furthering the cause of science. But most aren't. Most are promoting religion (evolution), politics (global warming), etc. Of course not everyone is going to have an interest in cord development. But if you don't have a single other interest in a remotely related field, I call bullshit. No one in this forum is going to call me out on Renshaw cells. But if I state that race has an insignificant effect on average body size, suddenly everyone is Sir Science, on her mighty steed, Empiricism, armed with blogs of Truth and Rationality. I sort of just want people to question why they care about these things. If you interested in equality, or fairness, or just plain controversy, fine. But if you are lying to me about how you are for "sound science" or whatever, I have to question why you really care.
*sigh* I'll be less subtle. I thought using the phrase "Cyber Communications" would hint at "The Holy Trinity of Internet Communications," and that the false equivalance argument was obvious enough.
But you do bring up some great points. Yes, people presume knowledge over which they don't know (e.g. economics, BBS). However, there's several ways to address this problem. Two of which are: (1) Encourage people to use different analytical frameworks for understanding causal relationships, or (2) try to shut down the inquiry while labeling people racist.
I opt for #1 by using the econometric way of thinking. You've regrettably opted for #2, which in my opinion is not at all productive/useful because it still leaves people wondering about those causal relationships. At least with the #1 approach, I provide some people the means for framing such questions in order to become more skeptical about their personal observations and the conclusions which they ponder.
Hopefully, that clears up the confusion. RE: your last sentence, Sure, many scientists don't view inquiries about race as decent, but that in no way contributes to the public discourse. Many (even scientists) adhere to th pretense of knowledge, but at least many are willing to understand through questions and argument. Side-stepping and/or undercuttnig the entire debate fails to undermine the sources of racism through idea creation in the non-scientific spheres. I'm tackling this problem, and you're essentially calling people racists (which isn't nearly as useful). It's almost as useless as Symmetry's approach of calling people idiots