Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Vegan
That you, personally, someone who is not at all moderate and is entirely a political correctness advocate, choose to throw out all evidence that contradicts your desired conclusion of 0 difference is entirely relevant.
|
All I can do is repeat, once again, that I have "thrown out" not one single shred of evidence in this thread. Not one. All I have done, quite correctly, is to point out the difference between evidence that is controlled for environmental factors, and evidence that is not, and I distinguished evidence that relates directly to
math aptitude from a sea of non sequiturs about political correctness. This is all I need to do to put your "evidence" into its proper place. Indeed, one needs only review the thread to see that every example of the "evidence" you now refer to (as it related to
math aptitude, not all the non sequiturs) was shown up to be completely uncontrolled for environmental factors. Yes, it was.
Quote:
|
I am not suggesting that "the political correctness movement" has cooked the books.
|
Then what argument can you possibly be presenting here, because "the books" are clear enough on this issue.
Quote:
|
I am directly stating that you, Ken G, are biased, and as such you have dismissed all evidence presented that contradicts your wish for genetic equivalence.
|
Argument by assertion. Show me the evidence you claim I "threw out", and then tell me it is controlled evidence that speaks to innate math ability and not environmental factors. I'm waiting, as I have been for this entire thread.
Quote:
|
What's more, you work with a double standard - you accuse those who see genetic difference of introducing evidence that is not valid based on the methodology involved, yet attempt to use anecdotal evidence to support your own theory.
|
I already dispensed with that "anecdotal" charge, in the context of the research data of Eric Mazur. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Quote:
|
But there is also evidence that points to there being significant genetic difference.
|
Oh really? Controlled for
environment? Relating to
math aptitude (not all the non sequiturs brought in by the "chip on their shoulder anti-politically-correct" posters)? Why haven't you entered any such evidence into the actual thread? I watched for it-- not there.
Quote:
|
Your claiming that this thread overwhelmingly shows 0 genetic difference is simply false. Your wishful thinking will not make it so.
|
Two logical fallacies: 1) argument
purely by assertion, 2) claims that what I wish substitutes for what I actually gave, which was a logical argument based on actual evidence from multiple independent sources and controlled for environmental factors. And truthfully, you haven't the vaguest idea what I "wish"-- I just wish people could get past the chips on their shoulders and stick to real logic as the right way to get to the truth.
Quote:
|
AT BEST the conclusion we'd have to draw here is that either the jury is still out, or, that ultimately it may be a little from Column A, a little from Column B.
|
Not if it is
logic that we are to use to reach such a conclusion.
Quote:
|
IE, there are differences, but they are not as enormous as previously thought and easily surmountable with good education and encouragement.
|
And you think you even know the
sign of the innate difference? Based on what controlled evidence-- that imagined evidence you keep referring to but cannot actually cite?