I'm glad we are in agreement in the main thrust of everything I was saying. At first it didn't sound like you agreed, especially when you asserted that the exact argument I just cited was insufficient grounds to ask for Paxton to resign.

I don't believe you. The interpretations given by Moon hoaxers to the photographic evidence are manifestly not the result of the combination of common sense to elementary photographic knowhow, whereas my conclusions about this photo certainly are. So your analogy fails completely. Indeed, I would tend to make the opposite analogy-- your claim that there's no proof there's really beer coming out of that keg sounds just like the hoaxer's claim that there's no proof those photos were really taken on the Moon. There is, in fact, a chance that that is true, no matter how small-- just as there is a chance there really was no beer coming out of that keg.

Actually... Not quite.

Review the link I supplied for Fallacies.

Example:
Paxtons son was arrested charged with DUI that following morning.
This looks bad- but it is not an indicator that he had been drinking the previous afternoon/evening. Nor is it necessarily relevant to his fathers behavior.
A lot of kids are nothing like their parents after all..

Combine this with you allegations and accusations against me, as listed above, and you will see a similarity in behavior.

Now- as the the analysis of the photo:
I presented a case that you do not know if any of them were underage.
You do not know if any of them were students.
This is similar to if I pointed out to an HB that his analysis of a Moon Photo is based on his guesses and he does not know, for example, proper lighting or how shadows fall on slanted surfaces.
Without knowing those details, his interpretation could be flawed.

Go back and read what I said.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

....
....

I said nothing contradicting any facts in this case.

It is indeed a photo of a man pouring beer down the throat of a woman.

The only thing I am arguing against, and the only thing which is "silly and ridiculous" is your morphing of the beer spigot into a phallic symbol as a flimsy rationalization for sexual harassment.

If you want to throw stones at the man, AT LEAST have the common courtesy to criticize him for something that's actually been proven to have happened:

a) drinking with students in a social setting
b) falsifiying grades / covering up the falsifying of grades
c) lying

Adding sexual harassment into the mix as an accusation shows your inherent bias towards PC thinking - why not leave sex out of it as it has nothing to do with this issue? Thanks.

__________________

Don't you know what a stick of chalk or penis in than hands of a male educator?

Drinking alcohol with students would be problematic in these narrow minded times, but that was Coors Light! Is it humanly possible to drink Coors Light to intoxication?

I don't think that accusation was ever formally determined, though I admit it sounds as though he was guilty. Everyone knows sporting achievement is more important to American colleges than academic achievement. I'm surprised they haven't replaced essays and exams with tryouts and fitness tests.

Who doesn't?

If you're trying to defame a man and don't have much to go on, throwing sex into the mix is always a good idea.

Good point.

__________________

Well, there's hardly any point in repeating myself. I've told you everything you need to know to open your mind to the truth. The rest is up to you. Maybe you just don't want to know.

I've heard these same words from HB's, CT's, Ufologists, preachers and charlatans.

__________________

I'm sure you have. But sometimes, it's true. I will close by summarizing the points I have made that have not been refuted in even the smallest degree:
1) No controlled study has ever indicated that genetic differences are a dominant or even important factor in the intelligence or math ability of any large population, culture, or gender.
2) In the absence of solid evidence to the contrary, the ethical and dignified assumption must be the null hypothesis that there are not genetic differences in intelligence,
3) The OP study did not even find any differences in the current population,
4) gender differences appear to be vanishing relative to 50 years ago, which would have to be due to cultural not genetic changes,
5) Empty gripes about "PC" influences do not in the least compromise any of the above facts, and in the absence of any "PC" awareness, we'd have people of questionable sensitivity and judgement leading some of our universities.
6) Of course, some reactions can go too far.

Kind of funny to hear someone who denies aptitude exists claiming he's in the right because of "scientific acuity."

You never fail to make me laugh.

__________________

KenG,
Throughout my time on BAUT, I have never actually found myself in opposition with you on a debate.
So far, many times, your scientific knowledge and approach has exceeded mine.

I hope you read this post that I'm making it now- and I hope you take some time to really think about what I'm about to say.
(I'll also ask that the Mods remain a bit critical, as I will need to cross some lines in making this address to KenG.)

During this debate, I have observed, from the outside perspective, unusual and irrational behavior from you.
It really caught me by surprise.
This is the first time, in all the time I have been posting alongside you on BAUT, that I have found myself arguing against Your Beliefs.
And that IS what is happening here.
And not only was I caught be surprise by your behavior- I was also disappointed by it. You acted just like an angry conspiracy theorist that wasn't getting things his way.

When it comes to the differences between genders and races, I tend to lean heavily in the direction of Equality.
The only reason for this is because scientific evidence that refutes any equality is either highly questionable or lacking.
Social Studies tend to be biased or inaccurate. It can't be helped unless the funding comes in to do a worldwide global study that studies all humans on the planet across several generations. Aside from that- solid evidence will be hard to come by- EXCEPT for One Field: Genetics.
Genetics can provide some solid evidence.

The next big question that comes to my mind is- Will I WANT that evidence?
What if that evidence declares that one gender or one race lacks the abilities that another race has?
Does it Really Matter if it does? Does it Really make a difference? Because Humans don't necessarily do what they are supposed to.
They dream
They aspire.
They overcome.
Stephen Hawking is a good example. His illness should have stopped his career and put him in a grave.

But with a bit of good timing, staunch encouragement and support, determination and grit, Hawking overcame that obstacle.

If I have Less aptitude in Mathematics than Curie- does this prevent me from pursuing a mathematical career?
Nope.
It only adds fuel to the fire for me to show 'em what I CAN do.

The argument about gender differences in aptitude- assuming that it even exists at all- Is a moot point. It doesn't really matter much.

But even if it does exist- and I do not want it to exist...
Should I close my eyes and deny the evidence in front of me?
Should I rationalize and then accuse others of rationalizing?

Beliefs are irrelevant to science.
And many times- science will show evidence that contradicts belief. When it does this, we really have no choice but to accept that evidence and let go of beliefs.

KenG, I think you don't want to know.

I have just experienced- what it is that you do- when you don't want to know.
I'm no better really- I have acted the same way... And it took other people telling me so before I would allow myself to see it.

So I'm telling you now. Whether or not you choose to listen and think about it has now become your responsibility.

The "truth" about this discussion is currently an unknown.
I prefer equality. But I don't know if that preference is accurate.
Should solid evidence refute equality, I will have no recourse but to accept that evidence grudgingly. But it also would take an awful lot of solid evidence, simply because humans are so complex and diverse.
I really don't think it could be provided anyway.

So that makes your "truth", KenG, a belief. Nothing more.
I'm reminding you now- that it IS a belief.
And the next time you step up to plate to argue for it's favor- You had best remember what it is. Belief. That is it's nature.
Denial of that nature and naming it "truth" will not change that nature magically to make you happy or justified in your claims.
Accusing others of rationalizing will not alter the fact that it is you that is rationalizing your belief and refusing to acknowledge that you don't know and don't want to know.

You're right, I chose to remove that even as you were reading it. I rectract the "acuity" comment, it's irrelevant and unsubstantiated. Please see instead how I summarized my points on this thread-- points that nothing you have argued has left the least dent in.

Nuts, you read that too-- I thought better of it, and substituted what I really wanted to say. I summarized my position, and still claim that nothing you've argued refuted even one particle of that summary.

Again, any frustration I felt was from the fact that I was arguing a perfectly clear and well-supported position, as summarized above, against a mountain of prejudice, rationalization, and just plain ignorance about how evolution even works (not in your case on that last point). Nevertheless, I kept my focus, at all times, entirely on the arguments presented, and not on the people. The only comments I made about people were inferred directly from the arguments-- such as a level of ignorance on a given topic. That's not ad hominem, it's inference.

No kidding, that was pretty much my point. Wow.

Right. How odd that you fail to notice there is not one shred of genetic evidence anywhere in this thread. In fact, the only person who even mentioned the X,Y chromosomes was myself. Par for the course. There was a load of genetic rationalization, but no genetics. Zilch. Do you think I'm wrong on that obviously verifiable point?
Kind of a moot issue-- when there is no evidence to deny. See my summary above.

Let me close by saying that even when my arguments are combative, there is nothing personal. The next thread I might be arguing just as vociferously in favor of some point you are making. I am passionate about false logic and bad science, that's pretty much the sum of it. And about the only place I've recently seen more blatant examples of both than on this thread, is on the concurrent religious origins of science thread.

The only thing? Weird, when I read that, I had to go back through the posts. As near as I can tell, no post talks about the spigot as a phallic symbal other than this one:
Was there a post that was edited, or something?

PS: I'm willing to bet that the spigot on the Smirnoff's was not defective

There was no editing on that issue, indeed I chose to completely ignore all aspects of that particular train of argument-- other than how it informed my conclusions about where there was an absence of understanding of what sexual harassment is. I wouldn't even want to imagine all the potential improprieties associated with that photo, but even if none of them were in any way realized in the truth of the events, even the perception of impropriety is a good thing for a school official to avoid. The way this whole business is relevant to the thread, which we should keep to, is that some felt it was only because of some "PC police" effect that data on genetic differences in intelligence were suppressed and discouraged, and this incident came under the heading of the kinds of things that the "PC police" is on the lookout for (most felt as a more favorable function of the latter). Perhaps that still makes it somewhat extraneous-- the key point is that anyone who thinks genetic effects on intelligence within large population samples is tainted by a kind of "disallowed interpretation" should do a better job of producing evidence of such data and the way its proper interpretation is lacking.

If I had a badge - I would give it to you as a PC officer Ken G.

However I feel the newest incident to be mentioned here which is being discussed is not a matter of political correctness. It does not involve someone making a statement about gender, sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, racism, or a division based on religion or creed.

It is solely about a college professor violating ethics by partying with students (with alcohol), lying, and possibly falsifying grades and/or covering up falsification of grades.

None of those allegations have anything whatsoever to do with Political correctness.

__________________

They do if you claim he's sexually harassing the girls in the photo.

I'm afraid the Wiki entry on the topic refutes your position once again (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness):
As you will no doubt note, it includes behavior so is not limited to "someone making a statement".

Despite the tendency to use "PC" to denigrate the concept of paying attention to the connotations and impact of our words and behaviors, the positive side of political correctness is, at its core, nothing other than sensitivity to the dimension of culturally propagated inequality (such as due to gender or race) in all its guises. Period. Further, it was the media, not the university, that reacted to this photo and got Paxton resigned-- the university trustees seemed all but perfectly willing to give him a pass on the whole incident (as they did on the grade falsifications). So no, the incident certainly does have a great deal to do with "PC"-- one cannot cherry pick the influences of that particular movement. But I will agree that the whole issue is a distraction from the main thrust of the thread-- whether solid evidence of innate gender differences in math acuity is simply being ignored out of fear of "PC police", or if it simply doesn't exist. The evidence is perfectly clear that the latter is the actual situation, and not one single post on this thread was able to make a case otherwise without using poor logic or blatant rationalization (and that's not a generalization-- I pointed it out specifically in every case).

No post, or all of them collectively, gave sufficient evidence for you to be willing to accept what goes against your programming.

But it is telling that there has been not a single post where you have introduced anything but logic or rationalization yourself, which is why I gave up on debating it.

The link provided by another user was useful and helped change some of my preconceptions (I did not believe evolution could happen in a single generation even in a small group) but I would still maintain that we've got a ways to go before we are all happily the same in aptitudes just as we strive to be in equality of opportunity.

__________________

Guilty as charged-- my only weapon has been logic, and an ability to spot rationalization.

Evolution is changes in hereditary information. Changes in physique due to changes in diet or lifestyle are not evolution.

I can't imagine why you think equalizing everyone's aptitudes would be a desirable thing. The only way I can think of realizing such an ambition would be if all humanity were reduced to clones of a single individual.

Equality doesn't always mean the same.

Yes, the example you gave would spell disaster.

But am I on an equal level with a mentally retarded person?
Intellectually, physically and academically, I have the advantage.
But I am still his equal and he is my equal. Not by ability but by value under life and law.
The mentally retarded person may have advantages that I do not have.
Similarly, so might engineers, preachers, business executives and pilots.
We all may not be equal in aptitude and ability, but we are equal by manner of balance and productivity in society under life and law.

It really is not wise to make claims like this.
Although your confidence is admirable... Should you discover that you were, in fact, rationalizing as well, You might find yourself feeling awfully silly for having made this confident claim...

That is true. Perhaps this thread would be more productive if it went further to elucidate what we know about genetics. I am not a geniticist or even a biologist, but I do know some of the basics, so I can pose the following question. Let's say that some isolated population underwent a period of many generations in which all of its men had to pass a math test at age 10, and only a fraction with exceptional math aptitude were allowed to live. That hypothetical situation might be associated with the idea that "men hunt so need to be better in math" (as if that rationalization every really made any sense). Here's my question for anyone inclined to believe in evolved gender differences in intelligence: would this, over time, result in the men in that culture being better in math than the women? Certainly-- they'd study math like crazy! But would they exhibit any genetically innate improvements that the women would not, over many generations? (Hint: think carefully how genetics works.)

I sure don't think so, though perhaps some higher-order genetic process would come into play that would associate with the Y chromosome in more complex ways than my simple understanding.

Now, what if the women in that population, at age 10, were given an exam requiring verbal communications skills, and if they failed, they too were put to death. Would that, over many generations, result in the women being innately more verbally adept than the men?

Same answer. But perhaps someone with real genetic-propagation knowledge can clarify these issues and elevate the sophistication of the thread.

Hunting requires logic, spatial acuity, and calculation.

You need to be able to judge distance, the arc of the spear or arrow, how to hit a moving target, how fast you must run to escape a predator or if it is not possible be ready to climb a tree to try to wait it out.

This kind of thinking is essential to geometry, and builds logic and calculation skill.

Taking children hunting, today, would be a benefit in those areas as it would aid in development of spatial acuity, calculation, and logic - regardless of the child's gender. The fact that some skills are transferable is hardly a rationalization that makes no sense.

If I learn a task that has similarities to another task, when I learn the new task my learning curve will be smaller because I will incorporate the experience gained from the first task I learned in mastering the new skill.

__________________

I disagree.
Someone recently had a thread in OTB about his Genius Cat that calculated jumps...

No, I don't see how this would make men any better than women at math.
Women require just as much of those same skills even if doing different tasks in the hunter/gatherer society.
Ironically, some feel this is part of why women show much greater tolerance to repulsive things and blood.
The men hunted, but the women did the carving up and transporting of the prey

Before I would begin to speculate as to why men are better at math than women...
Someone would need to demonstrate to me that men ARE better at math than women!

It's an unrealistic example: real selection is not so extreme. Eventually yes, because there would be a price to pay for such a great investment in intelligence and the woman would be better off if they didn't pay it. Therefore male-specific gene alleles to increase intelligence would be favoured over sex neutral ones. Unless such variation already existed in the population the short-term effect would be a general increase in the prevalence of "high IQ" genes.

The expression of many genes is dependent on the sex chromosomes. The Y chromosome codes for very little. It just flips a switch that says "turn on male-type development" that is picked up by autosomal genes.

Right. In the absence of sound evidence to the contrary, "No difference" is the standard null hypothesis. Many in this thread seem oblivious to this basic principle of science (essentially a form of Occam's Razor).

I'm glad you took my post seriously, and thought about Boas' studies. However, I must strongly disagree with an inference that you seem to have made there. The fact that skull shapes can change so radically in a single generation cannot be taken as evidence of evolution. That's much too quick for evolution to happen! A change as fast and as generalised as this can only be explained by environmental effects. Which absolutely kills any idea that physical features like skull shape, assumed to be racial, are (primarily) innate/genetic. They're significantly molded by the environment.

This seems like the natural inference to make, for me, but let's assume you won't agree. I'll suppose now, for the sake of the argument, that evolution can produce visible physical (or intellectual) changes in one or two generations. Then I ask you: why can't women become as good at math as men in the course of a few generations via evolution?

In fact, you appeared to admit just this, in your post:

I certainly agree with your sentiment.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

True. Sometimes even in the presence of sound evidence to the contrary.I disagree that Occam's Razor is a basic principle of science, though, because of its subjective nature.

I know.

But, since we seem to agree on the essential (what is the proper null hypothesis), we can leave that discussion for another thread. I will grant you that one can also say that it is the evidence which is insufficient to prove that an innate difference exists, and in that case one should assume that there is no innate difference.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.