tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4601303725303718738..comments2024-03-18T21:06:42.546-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Meta-bigotryEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger154125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41705281957763117422017-04-03T09:50:04.010-07:002017-04-03T09:50:04.010-07:00Dianelos,
I see that we are on such different wav...Dianelos,<br /><br />I see that we are on such different wavelengths, so to speak, that I am going to have to take a look at the material you have left a little later.<br /><br />I had written a second response, but realized it was even more off base than the one that is up now.<br /><br />I simply have no experience in adequately dealing with the kind of language, and the kinds of predicates you are sincerely using.<br /><br />In a way, it's as if great swaths of your writing is incomprehensible to me.<br /><br />Probably the way Thomism looks to atheists.<br /><br />Anyway, I'll consider it.DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50711353875600214442017-04-03T07:52:13.554-07:002017-04-03T07:52:13.554-07:00Dianelos GeorgoudisApril 2, 2017 at 3:13 AM
DNW,
...Dianelos GeorgoudisApril 2, 2017 at 3:13 AM<br /><br />DNW,<br /><br />Thank you for the interesting discussion.<br /><br />“However, my issue was with what I took to be the falsehood of your propositions that "the value of human persons remains identical." and "This is a basic premise of theism". I am trying to understand how this could possibly be true of theism, when it is not even true of a more limited monotheism.”<br /><br />Since there is one God I also speak of one theism. I don't use the concept of theism in the historical sense but in the epistemological sense if you like. Everything true about God belongs to theism. I look forwards to the truth, not backwards to what theologians thousands of years ago believed. ""<br /><br />Well, OK, I guess ...<br /><br />But, plodder that I am, I only know what "theism" means by looking at historical examples of how people have used and claimed the word; and, how it has generally found an accepted meaning.<br /><br />And, in that case, theism per se, does not imply human equality: neither directly, human person to human person; nor with regard to their equal status in relation to the Deity.<br /><br />"So theists and atheists alike see that all humans have the same intrinsic value as objects of ethical concern (we see that not as clearly as the trees around us, but we see it clearly enough when we actually look). That's a datum of the human condition. "<br /><br />Dianelos, guy, buddy ole pal, this is clearly not true!<br /><br />I mean it has a nice ring to it. It probably is a sentiment and intellectual posture both, to which a deeply feeling believer is inevitably brought. But as a matter of historical and social fact, it is simply not true that all - even city dwelling technology using - persons have such a conscience, or even an inkling of such things as intrinsic human value, or as you modify it: an entitlement to ethical concern.<br /><br />I mean you are way into Jesus, or Cicero or Seneca by the time you get to that point. And you can just as easily leave, leaving behind all traces of their effects.<br /><br />Hell, half the American populace is not there now; having decided for 'political' reasons to decamp for the realms of the hedonic nihilists. And they are quite happy ... until they are not.DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9549461581444393732017-04-02T03:16:01.069-07:002017-04-02T03:16:01.069-07:00[continues from above]
So I would say that theolo...[continues from above]<br /><br />So I would say that theology comes from the application of our mind to God's special providence, the truths our mind discovers through God's direct interaction in our lives and not through our by our own interaction with the world. Bellow I will give some examples, but let me first point out some implications of this understanding: First, even though as defined there is a clear distinction between philosophy and theology, the first being our mind's application to its interaction with general providence and the latter to its interaction with special providence, from the inside – in our experience of life – it is not at all clear where philosophy ends and where theology starts. For all I know those atheist philosophers of ethics who produce good work may be moved by God's special interaction with their mind. Secondly, given that knowledge based on theological input is communicated to others, it is not clear to what degree what we read in philosophical books is really of theological origin, and what we read in theological books is really of philosophical origin. In short: Reason itself is given by general providence, it's a fact about the human nature. But what is given to reason to reason about may well come from God directly (special providence) and not from creation's natural order (general providence).<br /><br />Even though the above picture does not allow for sure-footed distinctions I'd like to mention some examples of what I suspect are the fruits of God's special providence in our minds, and thus theological in nature: A rather common event is that of people reading the gospels with an open mind and becoming aware of God's divine voice in them. Even though we are made in God's image and thus are made with a sensus divinitatis, that is with a natural ability to recognize the divine, in some or perhaps most cases that experience of recognition when reading the gospels may come from special providence. A second example concerns mystical experiences, again a common feature of the human condition, and which cuts through all ages and geographical regions. Now, again, since we are God-made and God is always present, mystical experience may be a natural feature of creation and thus belong to general providence. Or perhaps not, and probably not always. I assume that those rare, peak, sudden, life-transforming mystical experiences (Paul's comes to mind) are probably of a theological source. A third example concerns the physical manifestation of special providence in human history. The main case here is of course the incarnation of Christ, but I am referring to the broad event of theologically moved minds leaving behind traces in lives lived and texts written. Here again the lines are blurred, but the publicly available physical manifestations of special providence are manifestations of special providence too. So special providence may work both directly through God's interaction with a single human mind, and indirectly when the fruits of such direct interaction become manifest in human culture and history. For all we know the power of some religious art comes by way of special providence. <br /><br />A final idea: Given that on the above picture theology is something which is not exclusive to theistic philosophers, I wonder if perhaps a less misleading way to talk would be about, “natural philosophy” and “spiritual philosophy”. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64125914585830119332017-04-02T03:14:29.455-07:002017-04-02T03:14:29.455-07:00[continues from above]
“If you do not mind my say...[continues from above]<br /><br />“<i>If you do not mind my saying so, you seem to hop from one leg to the other, from philosophy to faith, as a matter of rhetorical convenience and as a way of avoiding unpalatable implications. It puzzles me.</i>”<br /><br />You led me to some interesting thinking here. I wonder if you'd agree with the following propositions:<br /><br />1. We know truths by our mind alone. (Even if God were to directly and by supernatural fiat plant a full-blown truth in our mind, we would experience that event as a sudden insight.)<br /><br />2. We have one mind.<br /><br />3. Therefore, all different domains of knowledge correspond to different applications of our mind.<br /><br />If we agree so far then we can study the differences between three important cases of domain of knowledge, namely of the natural sciences, philosophy and theology. <br /><br />In the natural sciences we apply our mind into discovering mathematical patterns present in the physical phenomena we observe in our environment. It's a pragmatically speaking very useful kind of application of our mind because when we discover such a pattern we can use it to build useful machines. Such as the internet without which our current communication would be impossible. On the other hand it's a rather simple-minded application of our mind, and it is possible to automatize the whole scientific endeavor using machines (which I say is almost certain to happen in the relatively near future). <br /><br />Now physical phenomena cover only a small part of the human condition. Most of the significant data we have (such as our awareness of good and evil) is not about physical phenomena. In philosophy we apply our mind to the *whole* of the human condition (and surely enough philosophers since the earliest of times concerned themselves which more significant stuff than mere physical phenomena), and try to discover the order in the whole. So philosophy is the complete science, and the natural sciences just a small part of the whole.<br /><br />So what about theology? On theism God not only upholds creation through the application of general providence (and in a part of it the order of physical phenomena), but directly interacts with creation through special providence. I don't know to what degree God interacts with creation, and perhaps it's not for us to know and we should not assume anything in particular. Having said that, if I had to bet I'd bet that God's interaction with creation happens continuously to a very large degree. What we can safely assume is that part of the condition of each person is not given by general providence alone but is given directly by God. The second view we can safely assume is that in general by following Christ (transforming ourselves into the likeness of God incarnate) does change one's experience of life and will in general make one more sensitive to the divine source of all reality (all we know saints experience life quite differently from us), but will not necessarily or even probably increase God's special attention. Actually the third view we can safely assume is that God's special providence is a creative process which is not subject to fixed rules, so for all we know God may interact with the mind of some sinners to a larger degree than with the mind of some saintly people. <br /><br />[continues below]<br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80864993077147037002017-04-02T03:13:58.028-07:002017-04-02T03:13:58.028-07:00DNW,
Thank you for the interesting discussion.
...DNW, <br /><br />Thank you for the interesting discussion. <br /><br />“<i>However, my issue was with what I took to be the falsehood of your propositions that "the value of human persons remains identical." and "This is a basic premise of theism". I am trying to understand how this could possibly be true of theism, when it is not even true of a more limited monotheism.</i>”<br /><br />Since there is one God I also speak of one theism. I don't use the concept of theism in the historical sense but in the epistemological sense if you like. Everything true about God belongs to theism. I look forwards to the truth, not backwards to what theologians thousands of years ago believed. <br /><br />“<i>Nor does it seem to me that the understanding which you assert atheists have of this "truth" could possibly be founded on any coherent and consistent application of atheist, or at least materialist, principles.</i>”<br /><br />Right, but here's the thing: Whether atheists like it or not we do possess the cognitive faculty of distinguishing good from evil. Naturalists (correctly) point out that any measurable effect of that faculty can be explained by a metaphysics in which no good and evil exist, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that we do *see* some ethical truths with as much clarity as we see the trees around us. So theists and atheists alike see that all humans have the same intrinsic value as objects of ethical concern (we see that not as clearly as the trees around us, but we see it clearly enough when we actually look). That's a datum of the human condition. Trouble is that some theists and some atheists find what they see does not comport with other beliefs they happen to hold and make the judgment to trust more those other beliefs than what they actually see. (That's where the deceiving spirits that use the intellect may have a hand.) <br /><br />“<i>unless you were to tautologically stipulate it independent of any evidence a priori.</i>”<br /><br />I suppose what one is directly aware of counts as a priori evidence. <br /><br />“<i>The equal ethical value of persons in Christian theory seems to be based on their equal status with regard to each other in relation to their Creator and to His ethos; not upon their equal value to one another directly or as members of a natural kind.</i>”<br /><br />Right. But in the same way that the scientist who finds her observations contradict a theory thinks she must change the theory, the philosopher who finds that her rather clear awareness of ethical facts contradicts a theory should think she must change the theory. “Natural law theory” has a nice sound to it especially since it is supposed to be grounded on God's natural law - but I say one thing we know for certain is grounded in God's natural law is our cognitive faculties. <br /><br />[continues below]<br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32388648039339491522017-03-31T09:20:12.553-07:002017-03-31T09:20:12.553-07:00Dianelos,
Thank you for your commentary on the sp...<br />Dianelos,<br /><br />Thank you for your commentary on the spirits of deception and the dangers of the intellect.<br /><br />However, my issue was with what I took to be the falsehood of your propositions that "the value of human persons remains identical." and "This is a basic premise of theism"<br /><br />I am trying to understand how this could possibly be true of theism, when it is not even true of a more limited monotheism.<br /><br />Nor does it seem to me that the understanding which you assert atheists have of this "truth" could possibly be founded on any coherent and consistent application of atheist, or at least materialist, principles. <br /><br />Even though it is conceivable that one might be both an atheist and a moderate realist, the moderate realist position alone does not lead to the conclusion that all members of some denominated class of natural kind entities have the same ethical value unconditionally: unless you were to tautologically stipulate it independent of any evidence <i>a priori</i>.<br /><br />The equal ethical value of persons in Christian theory seems to be based on their equal status with regard to each other in relation to their Creator and to His ethos; not upon their equal value to one another directly or as members of a natural kind.<br /><br />If you do not mind my saying so, you seem to hop from one leg to the other, from philosophy to faith, as a matter of rhetorical convenience and as a way of avoiding unpalatable implications.<br /><br />It puzzles me. <br /><br />DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12516356952587086252017-03-29T14:27:52.899-07:002017-03-29T14:27:52.899-07:00@ DNW,
”that simplifies matters.”
Sure. We are p...@ DNW,<br /><br /><i>”that simplifies matters.”</i><br /><br />Sure. We are philosophers who want to find out which side is right, not psychologists who want to find out what drives the sides into conflict. <br /><br />As for the rest of what you write I'd only like to comment this: There are, there really are, in the human condition powerful spirits of deception. The most successful ones are those one thinks are one's friends. Anger is such a spirit of deception – there is not really such a thing as “good anger”. Another spirit of deception brainy people should be careful about is the intellect. The intellect – the philosopher's tool – can work deceptively and lead one step by step into spiritual error. And that's why I find it's always useful to do reality checks. Such reality checks should be the core beliefs of Christianity. One such core belief is that we are all made in the image of God (not in God's likeness: that's our natural end), and that God values and loves equally each one of us. Another core belief for the Christian is Christ's core ethical message: <i>”Love each other like I have loved you”</i>Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80040568390101698812017-03-27T08:35:16.270-07:002017-03-27T08:35:16.270-07:00"I am not sure nor particularly care to know ...<i>"I am not sure nor particularly care to know what drives people on both sides of the loud debate."</i><br /><br />Well, that simplifies matters.<br /><br /><i>"On the other hand surely we agree that no matter what the effects of genetics is on intelligence (or on any other human characteristic), the value of human persons remains identical. This is a basic premise of theism: that we are all creatures made in the image of God and have the same value in the eyes of God, and thus the same value simpliciter. That's an ethical truth that even atheists understand."</i> <br /><br /><br />You say that it is a basic premise of theism that we are all creatures made in the image [and likeness] of God? That cannot be true of all theism; it is certainly not even true of all monotheism, and not even true of all so-called 'Abrahamic religions'.<br /><br />Unless, for example, you wish to impute to the announced status of all Muslims as being slaves of Allah, the additional attribute of their moral equality; and then to somehow extend that dubious equality to the proposition that they are made in the image of Allah, I cannot see how you would make that work. But you know, there are none like Allah ...<br /><br /><br /><i>" ... have the same value in the eyes of God, and thus the same value simpliciter. That's an ethical truth that even atheists understand."</i><br /><br />And in the case of atheists, they have even less logical foundation to assume the truth of what you say they understand. This is especially so if they are in fact culturally piggybacking off a more general concept which they deny. That would just make their comical moral incoherence <a href="https://youtu.be/jhXdKWW2aqk?t=4421" rel="nofollow">all the more ironic, and entertaining.</a>DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8517449158017365502017-03-26T14:51:57.543-07:002017-03-26T14:51:57.543-07:00George LeSauvage,
”How modest of you to judge it...George LeSauvage, <br /><br /><i>”How modest of you to judge it excellent.”</i><br /><br />Not just modest, but also precise. And you are right, modesty is one of may greatest virtues. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36545794170584672462017-03-26T14:50:35.530-07:002017-03-26T14:50:35.530-07:00@ WorBlux
”Show may any disease which has a herit...@ WorBlux<br /><br /><i>”Show may any disease which has a heritable risk factor, but which doesn't have unequal racial distribution.”</i><br /><br />But that's exactly my point. It's very easy to demonstrate that there are is an effect of race apart from environmental factors on the frequency of heritable diseases, and in comparison very hard (nobody has conclusively managed yet) to demonstrate a racial effect of race apart from environmental factors. Which strongly suggests that even if there is a significant effect of biology these effects must cancel themselves out when averaged on a race. <br /><br />“<i>But you would not see the difference persist through twin and adoption studies</i>”<br /><br />As I explained in some detail <a href="http://bit.ly/FP-nurture" rel="nofollow">here</a> these studies suffer from a methodological problem which is usually overlooked and in any case is impossible to factor out. <br /><br />“<i>because the IQ of parents has a major influence on the environment, it's difficult to isolate the two variables where children remain with the biological parent</i>”<br /><br />Yes, good point. Thus the correlation between IQ of offspring and IQ of parents may certainly not be caused by genetic factors but by environmental ones. Even if no genetic factors existed, the fact that the IQ of parents has such a major influence on the environment would cause such a correlation. <br /><br />“<i>The debate isn't caused by the methodology or results, but because it conflicts with the doctrine of radical egalitarianism.</i>”<br /><br />I am not sure nor particularly care to know what drives people on both sides of the loud debate. On the other hand surely we agree that no matter what the effects of genetics is on intelligence (or on any other human characteristic), the value of human persons remains identical. This is a basic premise of theism: that we are all creatures made in the image of God and have the same value in the eyes of God, and thus the same value simpliciter. That's an ethical truth that even atheists understand. Thus the way we care more for those babies that are born with some handicap (whether physical or mental), if it were the case that some babies because of their race are born with some cognitive handicap society should implement special programs to help them. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10103880139618908032017-03-25T18:05:43.656-07:002017-03-25T18:05:43.656-07:00Dianelos Georgoudis said... " And on averag...Dianelos Georgoudis said... " And on average the variations in the genome that do matter for IQ may cancel themselves out in every racial group."<br /><br />While in thoery possible, in practice is improbable. Show may any disease which has a heritable risk factor, but which doesn't have unequal racial distribution. <br /><br /> Dianelos Georgoudis said... " But if race had 0% effect on IQ scores, one would still observe a strong correlation between IQ scores and race, for the simple reason that there is a high correlation between race and environmental factors of upbringing. Thus for example, black children in the US grow in much poorer environment than whites. Children of Asian immigrants may be equally poor but because of cultural reasons grow in stable families and with demanding parents who impose a high degree of discipline. "<br /><br />But you would not see the difference persist through twin and adoption studies, which from what I know of the literature, it does not. Additionally would see far more success in intervention programs, which with the exceptions of reducing exposure to toxins and improving early development nutrition fail to produce significant long-term results. One factor that could still be leveraged it to reduce childhood abuse and other adverse experience, which I think could reduce but not eliminate the gaps. <br /><br /><br />And secondly because the IQ of parents has a major influence on the environment, it's difficult to isolate the two variables where children remain with the biological parent. Also culture is in part intentional. The Chinese have had two and a half millennia of institutions prizing and rewarding intellectual accomplishment. The value of perpetuating this is more readily realized by those who are intellectually accomplished. <br /><br /> Dianelos Georgoudis said... " Thus the *only* thing matters is the cause of the IQ differences, which as you say is a much debated and controversial issue. Meaning that there is no reason that justifies any belief about differences among IQ scores being to some degree caused by race. On the contrary, given that many studies have been done without dispelling the controversy makes it probable that any causal role race may play will be very small. For if it weren't then the effect would have been noticed by now. So, on the contrary, we have good reason to believe that race place little or no role. Sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence."<br /><br />The debate isn't caused by the methodology or results, but because it conflicts with the doctrine of radical egalitarianism. The controversy isn't about the science, it's about the surrounding worldview. So far the evidence that is absent is any demonstration of a way to erase the gap via environment. <br /><br /> Dianelos Georgoudis said... "What I find so strange in this context is that we know that the biological features that define race have little to do with the kind of evolutionary pressures that produced the human brain. So for example the dark skin of blacks is an adaptation to the strong sun in Africa, the slanted eyes of Asians is caused by genetic drift or culturally fixed sexual tastes, and so on. Given what we know about how biological evolution works we would be surprised if the features in the genome which define race had anything to do with intelligence."<br /><br />So would even the strongest defenders of racial IQ differences. Race as mere appearance has nothing to do with intelligence. That appearance as a probable indicator of a specific genetic heritage does, and is also a probable indicator of a plethora of genetic traits that are more than skin deep. <br />WorBluxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17237331780596277891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42467492217621299092017-03-24T18:02:09.243-07:002017-03-24T18:02:09.243-07:00Dianelos Georgoudis said...
On the web there ...<i>Dianelos Georgoudis said...<br /><br /> On the web there is this in my judgment excellent article “On nature and nurture – and why nature is probably much overrated” </i><br /><br />How modest of you to judge it excellent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1266016768791920262017-03-24T06:52:56.576-07:002017-03-24T06:52:56.576-07:00Scott W.: But lately I'm starting to get a se...Scott W.: <i>But lately I'm starting to get a sense of cognitive dissonance among the self-appointed imams of the SocJus religion. Namely, starting with that intelligence is the only significant measure of human worth.</i> <br /><br />Hear hear. <br /><br />Now (in this very thread) we see people projecting their own fixation on intelligence as the main parameter of worth onto those who study intelligence, and imagine that anyone who finds inequality of intelligence must thereby be asserting inequality of human worth. Pretty much in direct defiance of all those compassionate people who find a medically severe lack of intelligence in another to be an occasion of pity and remedy as opposed to a diminution of worth. <br /><br />Prescriptions of social policy must be based on reality, not make-believe wishes for universal intellectual equality that are as irrational as make-believe wishes of universal physical equality or health equality. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65281016745276714082017-03-24T06:38:57.919-07:002017-03-24T06:38:57.919-07:00For a completely different leading-edge understand...<i>For a completely different leading-edge understanding of the limitations of the now dogmatically orthodox genetic determinism why not check out the very interesting topic of Epigenetics.<br />A good place to start would be the book by Bruce Lipton titled The Biology of Belief...</i> <br /><br />It has been apparent for many years that genetics doesn't "determine" life in the simplistic way it was often imagined in the 60's and 70's. And few careful scientists are now as "dogmatically" certain of genetic determinism as many were back 50 years ago. <br /><br />Yet I really don't think that exchanging the simplistic account <i>genes - deterministic hand-waving - heretofore unexplained behavior</i> model with a replacement by mystical <i>genes and epigenetics - quantum randomness and spiritual hand-waving - heretofore unexplained behavior</i> model is really all that much of a gain. I would rather stick to the model that says "we don't actually have a scientific account for consciousness nor its spiritual, moral, and physical effects" than to assume that quantum effects and spiritual effects amount to equivalent sorts of explanation. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82667164815622091402017-03-23T20:15:58.592-07:002017-03-23T20:15:58.592-07:00For a completely different leading-edge understand...For a completely different leading-edge understanding of the limitations of the now dogmatically orthodox genetic determinism why not check out the very interesting topic of Epigenetics.<br />A good place to start would be the book by Bruce Lipton titled The Biology of Belief - Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter & Miracles - and on the back cover The Science of How Thoughts Control Life.<br /><br />Also a very interesting paradigm busting book titled The Rainbow and the Worm: The Physics of Organisms by Mae-Wan Ho. <br />And The Heart-Mind Matrix: How the Heart Can teach the Mind New Ways To Think (and thus to be) by Joseph Chilton PearceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30273356650268291502017-03-23T15:29:50.381-07:002017-03-23T15:29:50.381-07:001) we are quite ready to acknowledge the superior ...<i>1) we are quite ready to acknowledge the superior IQs of Asians in comparison to Europeans;<br /><br />2) we are quite ready to acknowledge that IQ is not just about your genes -- of course there is a mix of nurture and nature influencing our intelligence; what seems to freak you out is that we acknowledge nature at all</i><br /><br /><br />Indeed. For fun, look a neighborhood scouts list of safest cities and most dangerous cities and then look at the wiki for the demographics of those cities. Hint: lots of Asians is a good thing. Then for extra credit, look at the success rate of African immigrants which shouldn't be happening according to the race-hustler narrative.<br />Scott W.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86121879736692425502017-03-23T13:14:50.328-07:002017-03-23T13:14:50.328-07:00Could we also call meta-bigotry "hypocritical...Could we also call meta-bigotry "hypocritical bigotry"? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01613627123506607663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64798137475871861182017-03-23T10:46:24.866-07:002017-03-23T10:46:24.866-07:00To the anonymous who is clueless about IQ testing ...To the anonymous who is clueless about IQ testing and genetics -- I always find it fascinating that folks like you tend to run away from this topic arguing that people who study it do so in bad faith or because we are racists even though:<br /><br />1) we are quite ready to acknowledge the superior IQs of Asians in comparison to Europeans;<br /><br />2) we are quite ready to acknowledge that IQ is not just about your genes -- of course there is a mix of nurture and nature influencing our intelligence; what seems to freak you out is that we acknowledge nature at all!<br /><br />I recommend Stuart Ritchie's book as an excellent recent introduction to the topic:<br /><br />http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=6122 Jeffrey S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10411126704920184190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41161904034334161102017-03-23T07:27:56.334-07:002017-03-23T07:27:56.334-07:00"And thus puts to sleep the whole idea that r...<br /><br />"And thus puts to sleep the whole idea that race is a significant cause. "<br /><br />I think that everyone here, would agree that "race" is not a significant cause. <br /><br />"Race" so-called, is a more or less crude population marker for classes or sets of people apparently manifesting shared physical traits.<br /><br />Whether the kinds of biological distinctions manifest in skin tone, susceptibility to certain diseases, lactase persistence, height, or physical vigor, have analogues in the functioning of the brain, is what is up for debate.<br /><br />The presumption of brotherhood duty issue, which I have broached, is another matter entirely; and has nothing to do with race per se.<br /><br /><br />DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46260703585686185752017-03-23T06:30:42.529-07:002017-03-23T06:30:42.529-07:00On the web there is this in my judgment excellent ...On the web there is this in my judgment excellent article <a href="http://bit.ly/FP-nurture" rel="nofollow">“On nature and nurture – and why nature is probably much overrated”</a> It does not specifically discuss the relation between race and intelligence, but proves how little effect biology has as the cause of the difference in intelligence observed among individuals in the first place. And thus puts to sleep the whole idea that race is a significant cause. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53040137273578865082017-03-22T16:14:28.327-07:002017-03-22T16:14:28.327-07:00@ Worblux,
”The existence of racial differences ...@ Worblux, <br /><br /><i>”The existence of racial differences of IQ is well known and well proven among those who study such things. The cause is hotly debated and controversial but the results both clear and explanitive of of large number of racial disparities within natio”</i><br /><br />Suppose that different adult IQ scores are caused 50% by differences in the genome of individuals, 50% by differences in the environmental factors of their upbringing, and 0% by their race, i.e. by those differences in the genome that are race specific. After all it's not like every difference in the genome, say blood type or the distance between the eyes, will have some effect on the IQ. And on average the variations in the genome that do matter for IQ may cancel themselves out in every racial group. <br /><br />But if race had 0% effect on IQ scores, one would still observe a strong correlation between IQ scores and race, for the simple reason that there is a high correlation between race and environmental factors of upbringing. Thus for example, black children in the US grow in much poorer environment than whites. Children of Asian immigrants may be equally poor but because of cultural reasons grow in stable families and with demanding parents who impose a high degree of discipline. <br /><br />Thus the *only* thing matters is the cause of the IQ differences, which as you say is a much debated and controversial issue. Meaning that there is no reason that justifies any belief about differences among IQ scores being to some degree caused by race. On the contrary, given that many studies have been done without dispelling the controversy makes it probable that any causal role race may play will be very small. For if it weren't then the effect would have been noticed by now. So, on the contrary, we have good reason to believe that race place little or no role. Sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence. <br /><br />What I find so strange in this context is that we know that the biological features that define race have little to do with the kind of evolutionary pressures that produced the human brain. So for example the dark skin of blacks is an adaptation to the strong sun in Africa, the slanted eyes of Asians is caused by genetic drift or culturally fixed sexual tastes, and so on. Given what we know about how biological evolution works we would be surprised if the features in the genome which define race had anything to do with intelligence. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76952709798686005372017-03-22T15:31:48.001-07:002017-03-22T15:31:48.001-07:00Dianelos Georgoudis said... @ DNW,
" ”thi...Dianelos Georgoudis said... @ DNW,<br /><br /><i>" ”this "society" business is a fallacy” ... I won't go into this discussion because it strikes me as irrelevant."</i><br /><br />Stipulate that "society" is not an entity capable of making sound moral claims against one individual on behalf of another individual with whom the first party has no actual indebtedness, then it would be irrelevant by stipulation.<br /><br />The question mooted is whether in the name of some externally based claim of equity, it is incumbent upon charter members to make special allowances for others to also become members; or, whether that equity claim obligates them to make allowances or sacrifices above and beyond what were called for in the original charter, on behalf of the lagging members.<br /><br /><i>" You do agree the high cost of living among stupid people, "</i><br /><br />I agree that sharing a living space with them imposes unwelcome and odious costs in the form of having to absorb and compensate for the spill-over effects of their behavioral incontinence and life-way incompetence.<br /><br /><i>" ... so you agree that in your country your tax dollars are well spent in giving people good education. "</i><br /><br />I agree that offering people a good education will afford some people benefits which they would otherwise not experience. However, you beg the question or at least assume that the expenditure of tax dollars on schools and students per se, results in a good education. Among American cities which have some of the highest per capita spending per pupil, are found districts which cannot graduate half of their students, and most graduating are functionally illiterate.<br /><br />This is part of the reason why the progressives are so desperate to pursue other social management remedies. Money didn't work.<br /><br /><i>"If then it were proven that ..., say white blue eyed males, were born with some deficit in intelligence potential, you'd agree that more dollars should be spent in educating that group. "</i><br /><br />No. Not if we are talking about the system of equality before the law; or even if we are talking about less formal principles of association.<br /><br />If your blue-eyed white males cannot normally learn what is necessary in order to survive in some particular socioeconomic or technological environment, they probably should seek another environment in which to thrive. It is in this regard that I am more than willing to make allowances: i.e., for people to live apart in ways that suit them. This of course entails they choose between a congenial but perhaps less enthralling A, and the more exciting B, of which they may not be able to be a respectable or self-sufficient member.<br /><br /> <i>If not, why not?</i><br /><br />Because you wind up with what has happened in this country. As the class of political peers has expanded to include an ever broader and ever less distributively competent set of persons to whom there has nonetheless been imputed a fictional competency, freedom is submerged under a flood of compensatory claims made in their name. <br /><br />A once understandable arrangement made in the interest of competent persons, is subverted by the inclusion of those not actually possessing the qualities which would make them worthwhile (political or other) peers. <br /><br />People who cannot govern their own urges and whims - morons, or most children, for instance - are increasingly lobbied for as deserving of having a peership say in your life ... when their practical need for wardship and their temporary, accidental, or insistent dependency, makes them unequal to the task of managing their own.<br /><br />So, if you wish to stake a membership claim outside of the formal and agreed upon boundaries of obligation, you might wish to state the alternate domain in which you are anchoring those alternatively founded claims to forbearance, sacrifice, and solidarity.DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69367679358910300752017-03-22T13:51:00.610-07:002017-03-22T13:51:00.610-07:00So, it turns out, when confronted, Anon couldn'...So, it turns out, when confronted, Anon couldn't support his over-the-top rhetoric. Personally, I am very surprised. I was sure we'd be treated to a detailed and mature explanation.<br /><br />Anyway, as was pointed out above, there is persistent statistical data to support the claim of racial differences in intelligence. That doesn't mean they are actually genetic, but it surely suggests it isn't absurd or bigoted to think that some of the explanation could be genetic? Am I missing something?<br /><br />Also, I wouldn't put too much stock in the majority of scholars not countenancing a particular position in this sort of topic. I have found you have to take any politically or socially controversial research with a huge pinch of salt if you haven't investigated the assumptions and methodology deeply yourself. Ideological assumptions, usually left-liberal, and even ideologically motivated chicanery are everywhere, just look at research into homosexual parenting, domestic violence, or the anything about people's political or social beliefs. I would imagine this sort of thing extends to the area in question.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12158504225361235272017-03-22T13:43:14.363-07:002017-03-22T13:43:14.363-07:00@ Billy,
”I mean, if its ok to consider obesity ...@ Billy, <br /><br /><i>”I mean, if its ok to consider obesity having a genetic factor, anger and violence having a genetic factor, alcoholism, homosexuality, etc, etc, then why not intelligence?”</i><br /><br />Nobody claims that there is no genetic factor in intelligence. Of course there is. Even I who happen to believe that in the nature vs nurture debate nature is very overrated, agree that two babies that should grow in exactly the same environment will develop different cognitive faculties because of genetic factors. <br /><br />The issue is whether on average there is a measurable difference between races. It is an ugly issue since racism and all the ills it produced was based on the belief that some races are inferior. And it is a stupid issue because differences of averages over races, if at all measurable, will be small. There are much greater genetic differences between individuals of the same race – so if one would like to use knowledge about such differences to optimize education, the study of differences of averages over races is a waste of money. And provides much potential for abuse. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83948796912421998772017-03-22T13:22:23.232-07:002017-03-22T13:22:23.232-07:00@ DNW,
”this "society" business is a fa...@ DNW,<br /><br /><i>”this "society" business is a fallacy”</i><br /><br />I won't go into this discussion because it strikes me as irrelevant. <br /><br />You do agree the high cost of living among stupid people, so you agree that in your country your tax dollars are well spent in giving people good education. If then it were proven that some particular group, say white blue eyed males, were born with some deficit in intelligence potential, you'd agree that more dollars should be spent in educating that group. If not, why not?Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.com