|
|
#41
10-17-2007, 01:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I understand that strictly speaking, concluding the premise is a logical fallacy. However, if intelligence is not genetically based, why can't I have a conversation with my cat? [/ QUOTE ] You can't have a conversation with a Zulu tribesman either. What does this prove? Also, I never said intelligence was not genetically based. Re-read my original statement. [/ QUOTE ] The reason people are arguing with you is because you said that Watson talks about intelligence having a genetic basis without ever proving it. The point we are trying to make to you is that it is so self-evidently true that intelligence has some genetic basis that there is no reason for Watson to waste time proving it. If his whole argument depended on intelligence being 100% inheritable then yes, that would have been a grave oversight. But thats not what happened. [/ QUOTE ] Ughh. Google "Glenwood State School", "Milwaukee Project", "Joseph Graves" etc etc etc etc etc. You people defending Watson, you seem to be treading the path to Eugenics/Dysgenics. That "science" has been garbage for 70+ years. [/ QUOTE ] I'm honestly not sure if you posted this in the wrong thread. [/ QUOTE ] If intelligence is not totally or nearly 100% genetically inherited, Watson's argument falls flat on its face. I don't believe we have even close to enough proof of that, all "conversations with cats" aside. This was my point. 
|
|
#42
10-17-2007, 01:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I understand that strictly speaking, concluding the premise is a logical fallacy. However, if intelligence is not genetically based, why can't I have a conversation with my cat? [/ QUOTE ] You can't have a conversation with a Zulu tribesman either. What does this prove? Also, I never said intelligence was not genetically based. Re-read my original statement. [/ QUOTE ] The reason people are arguing with you is because you said that Watson talks about intelligence having a genetic basis without ever proving it. The point we are trying to make to you is that it is so self-evidently true that intelligence has some genetic basis that there is no reason for Watson to waste time proving it. If his whole argument depended on intelligence being 100% inheritable then yes, that would have been a grave oversight. But thats not what happened. [/ QUOTE ] Ughh. Google "Glenwood State School", "Milwaukee Project", "Joseph Graves" etc etc etc etc etc. You people defending Watson, you seem to be treading the path to Eugenics/Dysgenics. That "science" has been garbage for 70+ years. [/ QUOTE ] I'm honestly not sure if you posted this in the wrong thread. [/ QUOTE ] If intelligence is not totally or nearly 100% genetically inherited, Watson's argument falls flat on its face. I don't believe we have even close to enough proof of that, all "conversations with cats" aside. This was my point. [/ QUOTE ] If intelligence is 0.00001% genetically based Watsons argument is entirely valid. Well, not the part about it sucking to have black employees, that part was ridiculous, but the part about there being racial differences in intelligence.
|
|
#43
10-17-2007, 01:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I understand that strictly speaking, concluding the premise is a logical fallacy. However, if intelligence is not genetically based, why can't I have a conversation with my cat? [/ QUOTE ] You can't have a conversation with a Zulu tribesman either. What does this prove? [/ QUOTE ] That there are no Zulu tribesmen in Georgia? I could certainly have a conversation with one if one were here. Might have to resort to hand signals or something if we don't have a common language, but it's doable. [/ QUOTE ] In that case I can have a similar conversation with my cat as well. He understands certain sounds and signals, and assigns meaning to them. He also creates certain sounds and has certain body language which I assign meaning to.
|
|
#44
10-17-2007, 01:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
At first I thought it was old news that one of the nobel DNA guys was a crackpot, but I was thinking of the other guy.
Apparently winning a nobel does not guarantee continued brilliance.
|
|
#45
10-17-2007, 01:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I understand that strictly speaking, concluding the premise is a logical fallacy. However, if intelligence is not genetically based, why can't I have a conversation with my cat? [/ QUOTE ] You can't have a conversation with a Zulu tribesman either. What does this prove? [/ QUOTE ] That there are no Zulu tribesmen in Georgia? I could certainly have a conversation with one if one were here. Might have to resort to hand signals or something if we don't have a common language, but it's doable. [/ QUOTE ] In that case I can have a similar conversation with my cat as well. He understands certain sounds and signals, and assigns meaning to them. He also creates certain sounds and has certain body language which I assign meaning to. [/ QUOTE ] So when you point at a window and say "window" your cat will say "window" back? Somehow I don't believe this.
|
|
#46
10-17-2007, 02:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I understand that strictly speaking, concluding the premise is a logical fallacy. However, if intelligence is not genetically based, why can't I have a conversation with my cat? [/ QUOTE ] You can't have a conversation with a Zulu tribesman either. What does this prove? Also, I never said intelligence was not genetically based. Re-read my original statement. [/ QUOTE ] The reason people are arguing with you is because you said that Watson talks about intelligence having a genetic basis without ever proving it. The point we are trying to make to you is that it is so self-evidently true that intelligence has some genetic basis that there is no reason for Watson to waste time proving it. If his whole argument depended on intelligence being 100% inheritable then yes, that would have been a grave oversight. But thats not what happened. [/ QUOTE ] Ughh. Google "Glenwood State School", "Milwaukee Project", "Joseph Graves" etc etc etc etc etc. You people defending Watson, you seem to be treading the path to Eugenics/Dysgenics. That "science" has been garbage for 70+ years. [/ QUOTE ] I'm honestly not sure if you posted this in the wrong thread. [/ QUOTE ] If intelligence is not totally or nearly 100% genetically inherited, Watson's argument falls flat on its face. I don't believe we have even close to enough proof of that, all "conversations with cats" aside. This was my point. [/ QUOTE ] If intelligence is 0.00001% genetically based Watsons argument is entirely valid. Well, not the part about it sucking to have black employees, that part was ridiculous, but the part about there being racial differences in intelligence. [/ QUOTE ] So tell me this, how does the "race" gene(s) correlate to the "intelligence" gene(s)? Given the following: One race has a higher average IQ than another race. Race is genetically determined. Intelligence is genetically determined (in part). Don't those three facts have to be put together before there is any scientific basis for Watson's conclusion?
|
|
#47
10-17-2007, 02:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I understand that strictly speaking, concluding the premise is a logical fallacy. However, if intelligence is not genetically based, why can't I have a conversation with my cat? [/ QUOTE ] You can't have a conversation with a Zulu tribesman either. What does this prove? [/ QUOTE ] That there are no Zulu tribesmen in Georgia? I could certainly have a conversation with one if one were here. Might have to resort to hand signals or something if we don't have a common language, but it's doable. [/ QUOTE ] In that case I can have a similar conversation with my cat as well. He understands certain sounds and signals, and assigns meaning to them. He also creates certain sounds and has certain body language which I assign meaning to. [/ QUOTE ] So when you point at a window and say "window" your cat will say "window" back? Somehow I don't believe this. [/ QUOTE ] Cat's mouths, tounges and vocal chords are different than humans. They are not physically capable of making the same sounds as us. Also, simply repeating a sound does not constitute a conversation.
|
|
#50
10-17-2007, 02:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I understand that strictly speaking, concluding the premise is a logical fallacy. However, if intelligence is not genetically based, why can't I have a conversation with my cat? [/ QUOTE ] You can't have a conversation with a Zulu tribesman either. What does this prove? Also, I never said intelligence was not genetically based. Re-read my original statement. [/ QUOTE ] The reason people are arguing with you is because you said that Watson talks about intelligence having a genetic basis without ever proving it. The point we are trying to make to you is that it is so self-evidently true that intelligence has some genetic basis that there is no reason for Watson to waste time proving it. If his whole argument depended on intelligence being 100% inheritable then yes, that would have been a grave oversight. But thats not what happened. [/ QUOTE ] Ughh. Google "Glenwood State School", "Milwaukee Project", "Joseph Graves" etc etc etc etc etc. You people defending Watson, you seem to be treading the path to Eugenics/Dysgenics. That "science" has been garbage for 70+ years. [/ QUOTE ] I'm honestly not sure if you posted this in the wrong thread. [/ QUOTE ] If intelligence is not totally or nearly 100% genetically inherited, Watson's argument falls flat on its face. I don't believe we have even close to enough proof of that, all "conversations with cats" aside. This was my point. [/ QUOTE ] If intelligence is 0.00001% genetically based Watsons argument is entirely valid. Well, not the part about it sucking to have black employees, that part was ridiculous, but the part about there being racial differences in intelligence. [/ QUOTE ] So tell me this, how does the "race" gene(s) correlate to the "intelligence" gene(s)? Given the following: One race has a higher average IQ than another race. Race is genetically determined. Intelligence is genetically determined (in part). Don't those three facts have to be put together before there is any scientific basis for Watson's conclusion? [/ QUOTE ] All of those facts would be stipulated by anyone with even a minor knowledge of biology, right? Which of those three do you disagree with? And the "race" gene correlates with the "intelligence" gene because different races have different frequencies of all kinds of genes, and it is entirely possible that intelligence is one of them. It might not be the case, but it is not unreasonable. Why would the "sickle cell anemia gene" correlate with the "race gene?" Selection pressures. If black people can be many times more likely to have sickle-cell anemia it sure isn't a stretch to think they might have differences in intelligence. However, the best argument AGAINST this idea is that there just hasn't been what we'd call intelligence for that long, evolutionarily speaking, and human populations didnt fragment and become isolated that long ago. What that means is that there have to have been very strong selection pressures to drive much evolutionary change. This is the case with sickle-cell anemia because malaria is very, very fatal. That is a stiff selection pressure, so it is no surprise that HbS genes have become very prevalent in those populations. Intelligence is a little different. I can imagine plenty of selection pressures that would drive increases in certain types of intelligence, like spatial reasoning and memory and things like that. But these don't seem nearly as fatally important as malaria resistence. Meaning its a less severe selection pressure and would take longer to see any sort of significant phenotypic change. I think this, coupled with the glaring flaws in our measurement of intelligence, make it IMPOSSIBLE to claim with any sort of certainty that there are true genetic differences in intelligent among different races. Mr. Watson is much smarter than I am, so I'd be surprised if he really thinks thats the case. Its very POSSIBLE, and there is probably some minor difference (and it could be that he has it backwards and black people have more innate intelligence they just have environmental influences that swamp this or something). My argument with you in this thread has been about your apparent misunderstanding of what "genetic basis" means and the implications of such. And I made a few points about how being afraid of being a racist is no good reason to avoid learning about the world. It is not my position that there are necessarily fundamental "intelligence gene" differences among different racial groups.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
