View Single Post
Old 02-25-2009, 09:43 PM   #54
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Yes I did, by your line of reasoning those studies would be perfectly valid, I'm not saying you believe those studies, but your line of reasoning can be used to say those studies were valid. Hmm, the only other thing I may have to apologize for is not including the word "line" but other than that.
Thank you for the adjustment. Sometimes a single word or syllable can make significant differences in what gets implied or inferred.

Let me also offer a clarification by actually outlining my line of reasoning.

The research I cited used empirical methods.
Their methods produced results.
The results are a product of empirical study.

Empirical studies have quantifiable data.
Quantifiable data from empirical sources are not subjective and have objective outcomes.
When the methods are understood and the data are acknowledge, the resulting correlations are undeniable until such time as specific flaws in the methodology are exposed.


What you've chosen to do, is equate two of the references I cited to the pseudoscientific and poorly researched speculations of a primarily Victorian age, but also the early 20th century. You didn't specify which "race studies" you were using as an analogy, but I'm familiar with several. Each had very serious methodological flaws -entire books have been written on this topic.

The research I cited earlier in this thread (and again a couple posts up) does not appear to suffer any methodological flaws.

Therefore, the line of reasoning I'm using is that empirical data, which survives modern peer review, can offer conclusions which cannot easily be denied with out detailed analysis of the researcher's methods.

Quote:
You're going off on a red herring, and btw, you did insult people's heritage and insulted people because of their religion, which is discrimination.
I don't believe I ever stated that I didn't insult anyone's 'heritage.' That's a term which carries a lot of meaning, so it really isn't useful. I do, however, maintain that I've never insulted anyone's ancestry or ethnicity -which is very different from "heritage." There is no demonstrated "red herring" fallacy at work in my statement since I'm asserting that the data I cited is drawing a negative correlation between cognitive ability and conservatism and cognitive and religiosity. This is all an attempt to keep the focus on the topic, not cause it to go astray as a red herring would. Indeed, I'm answering a red herring, not creating one.

Quote:
Actually it's just like the pseudoscience, your line of reasoning can be used to validate those studies.
Wrong. See above.

Quote:
And as far as empirical data, I somehow doubt that. You've used every chance you had to bash people based on whether or not they believe in God, which is religious discrimination. I'm not going to back off that statement because that's the truth.
There is, without a doubt, an objective truth involved in our discussion. However, it cannot be approached without critical thought, logical reasoning, and rational discourse. The constant introduction of fallacious logic obfuscates the arrival of this discourse to the objective truth. I won't pretend to know this objective truth, but I'm confident that I'm closer to it than not. You can "doubt" the research are empirical data all you'd like (and doubt is a good thing), but you'll need to analyze the data and demonstrate the flaws in the methods before asserting its wrong, otherwise you're just saying, "No! I disagree! Why? Errrmmm... because, that's why!"

Quote:
That exact kind of study was done before by the Nazis in the 1930s.
Wrong. See above.

Quote:
That is a fact, and you can argue it all day long, but the facts are the facts. You're just dismissing it because it completely invalidates your sources.
No facts have been presented that invalidate the data presented by the research I cited. Believe me, if it did, I'd publish a paper in Intelligence in the very next issue and have something really cool to add to my CV! So if you really have some facts that invalidate it, I'm very open to reading them and ready to revise my assessment!


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,