race "realism" is flawed

Author: drlebronski

Posts

Total: 16
Topic's author
#1
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
when i say race realists i mean people who think black people are genetically inferior to white people




an important study was published in the journal Developmental Psychology in 1986. The author observed that black and interracial children raised by white parents had a significantly higher mean IQ score than age-matched children raised by black parents (117 vs 104), and argued that differences in early socialization explained this gap. Nisbett et. al's 2012 review found that these differences in socialization "were large enough to account for virtually the entire Black–White gap in IQ," lending more credence to the environmental argument.


A 2012 paper by Richard Nisbett (co-authored with James Flynn and other leaders in the field), published in the American Psychologist, reviewed numerous studies conducted over the past decades, finding that the evidence "fails to support a genetic hypothesis.” The authors instead argue for an environmental explanation of the racial IQ gap.


In addition, a 2017 study in the Journal of Intelligence examined trans-racial adoptions, finding that "there is no consistent IQ difference between Black adoptees raised by Whites and White adoptees raised by Whites." This supports the "nil hypothesis" (i.e. "that adoptees of different races have similar IQs when raised in the same environment"), indicating that there is no genetic IQ gap between races.

(let me know if any of the links don't work i posted this in another forum but the links don't work hopefully it works now)
#2
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,362
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@drlebronski
I'm not saying I think or think not that blacks are better athletes.
But if someone thought or claimed that (Insert Group) were superior athletes.
Why is it inconceivable that there'd be brain differences between groups?

Though, I don't really think 'black or 'white is a 'genetic group, myself. Since 'black or 'white is 'just skin color.
There's plenty of white dogs of 'various breeds.
The 'color, not being so much in play in their genetics, body shape, and brain, as 'other factors.


Topic's author
#3
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@Lemming
Why is it inconceivable that there'd be brain differences between groups
as for sports yes it is true that the majority of professional runners are black.
Assuming that this success is driven by genes rather than environment, there is a rather obvious inference to make - black people are naturally better sprinters than white people. Indeed, it is an inference that seems obligatory, barring considerations of political correctness
But here's the thing. This inference is not merely false - it is logically flawed. And it has big implications not merely for athletics, but for the entire issue of race relations in the 21st Century.

To see how, let us examine success not in the sprints but in distance running, for this is also dominated by black athletes. Kenya has won an astonishing 63 medals at the Olympic Games in races of 800m and above, 21 of them gold, since 1968. Little wonder that one commentator once described distance running as "a Kenyan monopoly".

But it turns out that it is not Kenya as a whole that usually wins these medals, but individuals from a tiny region in the Rift Valley called Nandi. As one writer put it: "Most of Kenya's runners call Nandi home."

Seen in this context, the notion that black people are naturally superior distance runners seems bizarre. Far from being a "black" phenomenon, or even a Kenyan phenomenon, distance running is actually a Nandi phenomenon. Or, to put it another way, "black" distance running success is focused on the tiniest of pinpricks on the map of Africa, with the vast majority of the continent underrepresented.


The same analysis applies to the sprints, where success is focused on Jamaicans and African-Americans. Africa, as a continent, has almost no success at all. Not even West Africans win much.
The combined forces of Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, the Republic of Guinea, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Togo, Niger, Benin, Mali, the Gambia, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Gabon, Senegal, Congo and Angola have not won a single sprinting medal at the Olympics or World Championships.
The fallacy, then, is simple. Just because some black people are good at something does not imply that black people in general will be good at it.

Imagine a similar argument using the Central African Bambuti, a black tribe more commonly known as Pygmies. With an average height of 4ft we could assert that the Bambuti are naturally better at walking under low doors. Would it be legitimate to extrapolate that black people in general have a natural advantage at walking under low doors?

Our tendency to generalise rests on a deeper fallacy - the idea that "black" refers to a genetic type. We put people of dark skin in a box labelled black and assume that a trait shared by some is shared by all.

the truth is rather different. There is far more genetic variation within racial groups (around 85%) than there is between racial groups (just 15%). Indeed, surface appearance is often a highly misleading way of assessing the genetic distance between populations.

#4
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,362
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@drlebronski
Never looked into it myself, so I couldn't say.
All I know is certain breeds of dogs are more intelligent than other breeds of dogs,
And that people claim 'physical differences exist in groups of human races.

So myself, I'm arguing for the underlaying logic, than any proof.

Even if it were something as simple as a group of people having higher testosterone. (Not any real group in particular)
Such a physical difference, would lead to differences in experience in how one handles situations,
Builds up habits,
Habits can influence intellect and choices in life.

Or if people can have genetic probabilities, such as sickle cell, or lactose intolerance.
I see little reason schizophrenia might not apply,
And by this we see genetics/dna, effecting everything material in a human, same as animals.
.
Thus there's underlaying 'logic of people who claim mental difference in race,
I'm not saying that logic is right, wrong, based in fact or not.
Mainly as I don't care much myself.

Just pointing out, Muscle is material, brain is material, additionally the brain is 'effected by other material in the human body, as I said testosterone, which can effect ability, or habit.
. . .

"but if a white person and a black person both have the same experiences there entire life there would likely still be differences not due to the fact that hes black but ancestry and different dna etc." - drlebronski

"as for sports yes it is true black people tend to be athletes." - drlebronski
As can be seen by your post, 

black people tend to be athletes." - drlebronski
Even if earlier you say 

"not due to the fact that hes black but ancestry and different dna etc." - drlebronski
People get used to looking at dna/genetics, through physical appearance,
For a reason of course, as appearance is 'linked to dna/genetics.

Black, White, just easy terms we use of category,
Though people of the 'same skin color, often have differences, based on where they've developed in the world over the years.

Eh, I'm rambling, with little to say.
Topic's author
#5
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@Lemming
edited post #3
#6
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,362
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@drlebronski
I think the edit is an improvement, as it makes explanation of a difference of skin and genetics/dna.

If people were 'truly trying to follow some eugenics program to increase body or brain functions in humans.
I'm 'doubtful, they'd care about 'skin, so much as other factors.
. . .
Unless the improvement to body or brain was focusing on improving melatonin for specific environments, in which case I 'think, but don't know,
That higher and lesser amounts 'both, have positives and negatives, depending on environment.

. . .

Though 'really, I 'think eugenics just means,
the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable.

So if a groups goal was (Insert skin color) because they just didn't aesthetically or culturally 'like the other options of skin color, then it'd make sense.
But for 'improving the brain or body of humans,
Skin color, doesn't seem that integral to me.
#7
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@drlebronski
I am curious if measuring averages is actually a beneficial way of testing differences or not. Think of the Bell Curve when it comes to the intellect between men and women. When you talk about the average intelligence of men and women studies show that it is about equal, but when break it down you see that it is not identical. There are more men at the extremes (really stupid and really smart) and more women at the average. This makes it so the average is the same, but when you look at all the smartest people and all the dumbest people you will find more men than women.

We can also look at agreeableness charts. While men and women are mostly the same there isn't perfect overlap, where essentially all the 100 most agreeable people are women while essentially all the 100 most disagree people are men. When you pick someone out of the entire population at random there is little difference, but the differences become more clear at extremes.

At the Olympics we saw that across many countries, thus many cultures and upbringings, that almost all the most successful runners were African. So I think it is a legitimate question to ask if there are such differences where the averages are identical or near identical but that at the extremes you can find differences by race. Most people try to focus on the averages, but I don't think that is necessarily the best way to think of things (as policies tend to be made with the extremes in mind).
#8
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@drlebronski
when i say race realists i mean people who think black people are genetically inferior to white people
Sorry, but you don't get to define terms to mean whatever you want. Race realism is about real racial differences between various groups of human races. Race realism does not mandate that race realists believe that "black people are genetically inferior to white people". It's possible to believe that and be a race realist, but it's not required. It's also possible to be a race realist and believe white people are genetically inferior to black people. 

Your definition is dead wrong.

an important study was published in the journal Developmental Psychology in 1986. The author observed that black and interracial children raised by white parents had a significantly higher mean IQ score than age-matched children raised by black parents (117 vs 104), and argued that differences in early socialization explained this gap. Nisbett et. al's 2012 review found that these differences in socialization "were large enough to account for virtually the entire Black–White gap in IQ," lending more credence to the environmental argument.
The issue with studying children is their genetic IQ expression isn't fully realized until the age of 17. During childhood, the environment has far greater impact on children's IQ. Conduct the same studies with 18-20 year olds, and you'll see regression to the mean (85 IQ for African Americans, and somewhere between 85 and 100 IQ for black-white interracial children, depending on admixture).  iq correlate with age - Bing images from: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age | Twin Research and Human Genetics | Cambridge Core 

It shouldn't surprise any studied race realist that the black-white IQ gap could be closed if you put black children in better environment (and/or white children in worse ones), and this by no means effects the genetic expression of IQ in adulthood. Hence, the gap hasn't closed.

A 2012 paper by Richard Nisbett (co-authored with James Flynn and other leaders in the field), published in the American Psychologist, reviewed numerous studies conducted over the past decades, finding that the evidence "fails to support a genetic hypothesis.” The authors instead argue for an environmental explanation of the racial IQ gap.
The Flynn effect doesn't debunk the genetic heritability of IQ. The fact that the environment can cause large gaps in IQ doesn't disprove that genetic heritability plays a part. Nisbett and Flynn are correct in saying that the average IQ of African Americans has risen over the years. However, so too has the White (American) IQ. Generally, the fact is that the factors wherein the African American IQ has risen (environmental ones) aren't the factors that account for the black-white IQ gap (genetically heritable ones). Ryan Faulk puts it succinctly The Flynn Effect, Race, and IQ – The Alternative Hypothesis : 

"...the Flynn effect and racial intelligence differences have nothing to do with each other. Intelligence differences between races and between generations are largely gaps in different abilities, to the degree that they are gaps in the same abilities they are produced by different causes, and the existence of a large gain in intelligence over time has no a priori implications on the causes of racial intelligence differences."

In addition, a 2017 study in the Journal of Intelligence examined trans-racial adoptions, finding that "there is no consistent IQ difference between Black adoptees raised by Whites and White adoptees raised by Whites." This supports the "nil hypothesis" (i.e. "that adoptees of different races have similar IQs when raised in the same environment"), indicating that there is no genetic IQ gap between races.
Link is for "nl.hideproxy.me". That doesn't sound like a research paper. I'm not clicking that lol.
Topic's author
#9
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
The issue with studying children is their genetic IQ expression isn't fully realized until the age of 17. During childhood, the environment has far greater impact on children's IQ. Conduct the same studies with 18-20 year olds, and you'll see regression to the mean (85 IQ for African Americans, and somewhere between 85 and 100 IQ for black-white interracial children, depending on admixture).  iq correlate with age - Bing images from: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age | Twin Research and Human Genetics | Cambridge Core 

It shouldn't surprise any studied race realist that the black-white IQ gap could be closed if you put black children in better environment (and/or white children in worse ones), and this by no means effects the genetic expression of IQ in adulthood. Hence, the gap hasn't closed.
"The term 'heritability,' as it is used today in human behavioral genetics, is one of the most misleading in the history of science. Contrary to popular belief, the measurable heritability of a trait does not tell us how 'genetically inheritable' that trait is. Further, it does not inform us about what causes a trait, the relative influence of genes in the development of a trait, or the relative influence of the environment in the development of a trait. Because we already know that genetic factors have significant influence on the development of all human traits, measures of heritability are of little value, except in very rare cases. We, therefore, suggest that continued use of the term does enormous damage to the public understanding of how human beings develop their individual traits and identities. "
also
 this work by Richard Nisbett, published in 2009) found that there is virtually no gap in heritability between ages 7 and 17

The Flynn effect doesn't debunk the genetic heritability of IQ. The fact that the environment can cause large gaps in IQ doesn't disprove that genetic heritability plays a part. Nisbett and Flynn are correct in saying that the average IQ of African Americans has risen over the years. However, so too has the White (American) IQ. Generally, the fact is that the factors wherein the African American IQ has risen (environmental ones) aren't the factors that account for the black-white IQ gap (genetically heritable ones). Ryan Faulk puts it succinctly The Flynn Effect, Race, and IQ – The Alternative Hypothesis : 

"...the Flynn effect and racial intelligence differences have nothing to do with each other. Intelligence differences between races and between generations are largely gaps in different abilities, to the degree that they are gaps in the same abilities they are produced by different causes, and the existence of a large gain in intelligence over time has no a priori implications on the causes of racial intelligence differences."

again you rely on heritability

Link is for "nl.hideproxy.me". That doesn't sound like a research paper. I'm not clicking that lol.
lot that keeps happening to me when i put links in for some reason hopefully this works 
#10
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@drlebronski
A problem with these trans-racial adoption studies is that they don't control for prenatal environmental conditions which can have demonstrable impacts on IQ. For example, the lead content of the water consumed by an expectant mother can have an adverse impact on the future IQ of the child. ("Prenatal lead exposure was associated with a deficit of 1.8 IQ points for every doubling of prenatal maternal blood lead" https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/docs/publications/leadandpregnancy2010.pdf page 36) The black population in the USA has, for several generations now, often been concentrated in urban areas where the water pipes are older and the water supply is more likely to be contaminated by lead, and also tends to reside in older houses because they're more affordable (racial wealth and income gap).
#11
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@drlebronski
@Mesmer
-->@drlebronski
when i say race realists i mean people who think black people are genetically inferior to white people
Sorry, but you don't get to define terms to mean whatever you want. Race realism is about real racial differences between various groups of human races. Race realism does not mandate that race realists believe that "black people are genetically inferior to white people". It's possible to believe that and be a race realist, but it's not required. It's also possible to be a race realist and believe white people are genetically inferior to black people. 

Your definition is dead wrong.

Wikipedia redirects its definition of RACE REALISM to SCIENTIFIC RACISM and provides this definition:

Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority.  Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific.  Dividing humankind into biologically distinct groups is sometimes called racialism, RACE REALISM, or race science by its proponents. Modern scientific consensus rejects this view as being irreconcilable with modern genetic research
So, going by Wikipedia, drlebronski's definition, "people who think black people are genetically inferior to white people" is not a complete definition and Mesmer is correct to say that RACE REALISM is not entirely White delusion regarding Black people although judging by the Wikipedia article the proponents of RACE REALISM are overwhelmingly White people and the inferiority of Black people is their favorite topic.

However, also going by Wikipedia, Mesmer's assertion that RACE REALISM is "about real racial differences between various groups of human races." is the more wrong statement about scientifically discredited pseudo-science.

Mesmer says drlebronski is "dead wrong" but going by the world's favorite reference tool, drlebronksi is at least partially accurate while Mesmer's definition is entirely inaccurate.
#12
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@drlebronski
Sorry, but you don't get to define terms to mean whatever you want. Race realism is about real racial differences between various groups of human races. Race realism does not mandate that race realists believe that "black people are genetically inferior to white people". It's possible to believe that and be a race realist, but it's not required. It's also possible to be a race realist and believe white people are genetically inferior to black people. 

Your definition is dead wrong.
I'll just assume you conceded the above.

"The term 'heritability,' as it is used today in human behavioral genetics, is one of the most misleading in the history of science. Contrary to popular belief, the measurable heritability of a trait does not tell us how 'genetically inheritable' that trait is. Further, it does not inform us about what causes a trait, the relative influence of genes in the development of a trait, or the relative influence of the environment in the development of a trait. Because we already know that genetic factors have significant influence on the development of all human traits, measures of heritability are of little value, except in very rare cases. We, therefore, suggest that continued use of the term does enormous damage to the public understanding of how human beings develop their individual traits and identities. "
also
Firstly, it's actually quite baffling that you'd imply that heritability is a completely false notion. Even Wikipedia, which often finds sneaky ways to distort reality to suit an anti-white agenda, doesn't even contemplate people rejecting the notion of heritability Heritability - Wikipedia . 

This article engages in a whole bunch of sophistry and doesn't actually deny the validity of heritability (in fact it outright concedes it, just in a sneaky way). Even in the abstract, it's already equivocating that heritable with inheritable. Yes, heritability doesn't determine whether a trait is inherited. Instead, heritability refers to proportion of variance attributable to genetics. 

In the very next sentence it continues with more sophistry by saying that because heritability doesn't "inform us about what causes a trait". Yes, heritability doesn't explain what "causes" traits. Again, it tells us the proportion of variance attributable to genetics, and so DOESN'T explain the parts that are NOT attributable to genetics. 

The sentence after we have this sentence: "Because we already know that genetic factors have significant influence on the development of all human traits, measures of heritability are of little value, except in very rare cases." They concede the implications of heritability (that genetic factors have significant influence on the development of all human traits), and then go on to imply there's "little value" in measuring the variance LOL. Like why? What? In any case, this DIRECTLY contradicts YOUR argument that using heritability is wrong BECAUSE they concede that it's a valid concept, they argue that there's little value in measuring it (which is in itself completely debatable).

So, after reading the whole thing, they've basically never argued that heritability is a false concept, they've just engaged in a whole bunch of sophistry to say 'it's not the same as inherited', or 'there's little value in measuring it (because humans are complex, doesn't completely explain inherited traits blah blah)', or 'the term should be developmental resource, not heritability', or 'traits are complex' and 'heritability doesn't explain everything'. They just do this hand-waving the entire article without doing any research themselves to show heritability is a false concept. In other words, the source you've provided to imply that heritability is a false concept doesn't even argue that.

Hell, the very title of the article is sophistry in that at a glance, useful idiots like you would read it (because useful idiots like you only read the title and sometimes the abstract), and then conclude 'wElL tHiS sAyS hErItAbIlItY iS a FaLlAcY', without actually understanding they are NOT arguing that at all, but instead they're arguing that the public doesn't always understand heritability and confuses it with things like heritable, hence the fallacy.

Your interpretation of this article is embarrassingly bad and you should be ashamed that you're the useful idiot these people want reading their sophistry, so that you spew scientifically incorrect conclusions.

 this work by Richard Nisbett, published in 2009) found that there is virtually no gap in heritability between ages 7 and 17
Do you actually read or comprehend any of the studies you post? Above, you've argued that heritability isn't a valid concept, and now you're citing a study that does acknowledge the validity of heritability, it just doesn't think it has an impact.

What are you doing lol.

The Flynn effect doesn't debunk the genetic heritability of IQ. The fact that the environment can cause large gaps in IQ doesn't disprove that genetic heritability plays a part. Nisbett and Flynn are correct in saying that the average IQ of African Americans has risen over the years. However, so too has the White (American) IQ. Generally, the fact is that the factors wherein the African American IQ has risen (environmental ones) aren't the factors that account for the black-white IQ gap (genetically heritable ones). Ryan Faulk puts it succinctly The Flynn Effect, Race, and IQ – The Alternative Hypothesis : 

"...the Flynn effect and racial intelligence differences have nothing to do with each other. Intelligence differences between races and between generations are largely gaps in different abilities, to the degree that they are gaps in the same abilities they are produced by different causes, and the existence of a large gain in intelligence over time has no a priori implications on the causes of racial intelligence differences."
again you rely on heritability
Again, you do realize that this argument you make here (citing a paper referencing the Flynn effect) argues with the premise that heritability is a real concept? It seems that all you do is get angry that I argue race realist points, find anything in an abstract that appears to contradict what I write, and then post it here without reading any of the study beyond the abstract.

Race realist talking points aren't quick to understand or comprehend. You can't just read an abstract and assume you have the correct view. You need to actually comprehend the concepts involved, be able to process research data (p value, interpolation etc.) and THEN respond to what is being said.

If you don't understand what you are talking about at all (you don't), stop engaging in race realist topics and actually comprehend the basics involved first. For you to have a discussion on the topic of heritability, you need to first understand what heritability means. Go and learn that.
#13
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@oromagi
Oh great. Another massive appeal to authority (logical fallacy) by you.

Wikipedia redirects its definition of RACE REALISM to SCIENTIFIC RACISM and provides this definition:

Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority.  Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific.  Dividing humankind into biologically distinct groups is sometimes called racialism, RACE REALISM, or race science by its proponents. Modern scientific consensus rejects this view as being irreconcilable with modern genetic research
Yeah so this might shock your 'appeal to authority at every opportunity' brain: I don't agree with Wikipedia. We've already encountered instances where Wikipedia has been wrong (it thinks Ad Hom isn't a logical fallacy: IQ is a Valid Metric (debateart.com) ), (it's hypocritical in thinking all racial groups but white people are okay: "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) ).

I totally reject the notion of "racism" as being sensical Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) , so this is a non-starter for Wikipedia's definition. Before we can even judge the validity of Wikipedia's definition, we would first need to see a defense of "racism" as a concept, otherwise Wikipedia can't attempt to conflate "scientific racism" with "race realism" because racism is a nonsense term.

I also reject the conflation of "scientific racism" and "race realism". Race realism should reflect the terms that comprise it: race and realism. Race has not been shown to equal "racism" (whatever that means), and hence this conflation should be rejected on that ground. Race is about populations of people geographically separated that interbred and thus are genetically and physically distinguishable. You need to demonstrate that "racism" equates to that definition, elsewise we can reject Wikipedia's definition. I can agree that "scientific" and "realism" are close enough to be valid, though.

I also think there is great harm in attempting to maliciously slander 'race realist' with the nonsense, malicious term "racism". If we are to reject the notion of human races on the basis that they are "racist", then you're being egregiously anti-scientific. Unless you want to deny evolution, you must agree that humans living in different environments will evolve differently to adapt to their environments. Hence, humans races will be different because they adapted. To argue that all human races are exactly the same, despite evolving in different environments, is flat-Earth levels of wrong -- deeply harmful. The definition of race realism I provided accounts for the differences between humans, hence should be preferred.

So, going by Wikipedia, drlebronski's definition, "people who think black people are genetically inferior to white people" is not a complete definition and Mesmer is correct to say that RACE REALISM is not entirely White delusion regarding Black people although judging by the Wikipedia article the proponents of RACE REALISM are overwhelmingly White people and the inferiority of Black people is their favorite topic.

However, also going by Wikipedia, Mesmer's assertion that RACE REALISM is "about real racial differences between various groups of human races." is the more wrong statement about scientifically discredited pseudo-science.
If you can't defend Wikipedia's definition, then it shouldn't be accepted as a premise. You need to defend the definition before you argue it as an assumed premise.

Mesmer says drlebronski is "dead wrong" but going by the world's favorite reference tool, drlebronksi is at least partially accurate while Mesmer's definition is entirely inaccurate.
Yeah going by logic, instead of your typical appeals to authority (logical fallacy), Wikipedia's definition can be rejected. You didn't even appeal to authority correctly here, in that you forgot to source your "world's favorite reference tool".
#14
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Mesmer
To quote you from yesterday:

Sorry, but you don't get to define terms to mean whatever you want. 
I think we have established that you are big on claiming logical fallacies but don't understand that logical fallacies only occur during the construction of an argument.  The structure of an argument can be challenged on architectural (formal) or material (informal) grounds.  In the post to which you are replying I made no argument of any kind, so claims of fallacy only demonstrate your lack of understanding.

Obviously, every definition of terms relies on authority to establish common grounds.  If your definition of the word THE is different from everybody else's, then it is entirely predictable that you are going to spend your whole debate defending your oddball definition.  Relying on the authority of dictionaries  up front allows us to establish a shared, common semantic base on which to conduct an argument.  I'd go so far as to say that for most debates, everybody should define their terms up front.  Most appeals to authority are legitimate.  A prosecutor is making an appeal to authority when he brings an eyewitness to the stand but that is eyewitness is the most relevant, expert authority on the subject.  An eyewitness knows more and so will likely will reveal more about the truth of that crime that mere deduction (Sherlock Holmes excluded).

In this case, both the instigator (drlebronski)  and the contender (mesmer) offered customized definitions for the subject of debate RACE REALISM- which is itself not a particularly commonplace concept.

  • people who think black people are genetically inferior to white people
    • vs.
  •  real racial differences between various groups of human races.
So, at the outset, you are both working with radically different definitions of the thesis' subject.  Obviously, such a difference should be resolved before arguments are presented so that the both of you are talking about the same thing.  For most  such circumstance, I go to Wiktionary and Wikipedia first as the most popular online references and therefore most likely to achieve that shared, common semantic base necessary to productive argument.

Now, Wiktionary says that RACE REALISM is just a euphemism for racist science so I checked WIKIPEDIA which redirects RACE REALISM to SCIENTIFIC RACISM which Wikipedia call pseudo-science.  I pointed out drlebronksi's definition was much closer to the WIKIPEDIA definition.

I think you are right to chastise drlebronski for not defining his term outright and a total hypocrite for then  inventing your own definition.  If you don't like WIKIPEDIA's definition then find an authoritative  source with a definition that you like.  If you can't find a definition that you like online, then the chances are good that it is your understanding of the term that's problematic.

If you are just going to make up your own definition, then you can't really fault drlebronski for doing the same.  In fact, he did it first so there's not reason not to prefer his custom definition to yours.




#15
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@oromagi
When I pressed him on that earlier he said the claim was merely that races are real. I doubt he will suppose anything falsifiable about it, and I mean that in the scientific sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
#16
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@oromagi
I think we have established that you are big on claiming logical fallacies but don't understand that logical fallacies only occur during the construction of an argument.  The structure of an argument can be challenged on architectural (formal) or material (informal) grounds.  In the post to which you are replying I made no argument of any kind, so claims of fallacy only demonstrate your lack of understanding.
You're right in saying that logical fallacies only occur during the construction of an argument. However, that's exactly where your argument incurred this logical fallacy. Time and time again, you continued to say 'Wikipedia said this' (these are all your quotes) race "realism" is flawed (debateart.com):

- "Wikipedia redirects its definition of RACE REALISM to SCIENTIFIC RACISM and provides this definition:"
- "So, going by Wikipedia..."
- "...judging by the Wikipedia article..."
- "...also going by Wikipedia..."

You DIDN'T get into the specifics of defending the definitions, instead you just quoted mostly Wikipedia, and hence this is a textbook appeal to authority argument, of which is a logical fallacy.

Not ONLY did you appeal to authority, you totally ignored my reasoning and logic as to why we should reject Wikipedia's (and other sources) interpretation of race realist. NONE of my argument was addressed by you in a manner that wasn't an appeal to authority:

"I totally reject the notion of "racism" as being sensical Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) , so this is a non-starter for Wikipedia's definition. Before we can even judge the validity of Wikipedia's definition, we would first need to see a defense of "racism" as a concept, otherwise Wikipedia can't attempt to conflate "scientific racism" with "race realism" because racism is a nonsense term.

I also reject the conflation of "scientific racism" and "race realism". Race realism should reflect the terms that comprise it: race and realism. Race has not been shown to equal "racism" (whatever that means), and hence this conflation should be rejected on that ground. Race is about populations of people geographically separated that interbred and thus are genetically and physically distinguishable. You need to demonstrate that "racism" equates to that definition, elsewise we can reject Wikipedia's definition. I can agree that "scientific" and "realism" are close enough to be valid, though.

I also think there is great harm in attempting to maliciously slander 'race realist' with the nonsense, malicious term "racism". If we are to reject the notion of human races on the basis that they are "racist", then you're being egregiously anti-scientific. Unless you want to deny evolution, you must agree that humans living in different environments will evolve differently to adapt to their environments. Hence, humans races will be different because they adapted. To argue that all human races are exactly the same, despite evolving in different environments, is flat-Earth levels of wrong -- deeply harmful. The definition of race realism I provided accounts for the differences between humans, hence should be preferred."

Thus, we should reject your argument on the basis of it being an appeal to authority, and we should accept mine on the basic of its logic and reasoning (but also the fact that it remains uncontested on its logical grounds).

Obviously, every definition of terms relies on authority to establish common grounds.  If your definition of the word THE is different from everybody else's, then it is entirely predictable that you are going to spend your whole debate defending your oddball definition.  Relying on the authority of dictionaries  up front allows us to establish a shared, common semantic base on which to conduct an argument.  I'd go so far as to say that for most debates, everybody should define their terms up front.  Most appeals to authority are legitimate.  A prosecutor is making an appeal to authority when he brings an eyewitness to the stand but that is eyewitness is the most relevant, expert authority on the subject.  An eyewitness knows more and so will likely will reveal more about the truth of that crime that mere deduction (Sherlock Holmes excluded).
Firstly, the audience isn't interested in you slandering my reasoning by labelling it "oddball", so you will stop with that nonsense.

Secondly, you misunderstand how definitions become universally accepted. Definitions do not rely on authority to establish common grounds -- this is an appeal to authority. Instead, definitions rely on cogent, logical reasoning IN ORDER to be commonly accepted -- the logic and reasoning drive the definitions to be universally accepted. Hence, I argue that Wikipedia's definition should be rejected on reasoning and logic, and when you retort 'that's not what Wikipedia says', then you commit the appeal to authority fallacy.

Thirdly, this misconception of the fallacy of appealing to authority is plaguing all your arguments here. In your court example, the witness isn't correct because he/she is a witness. Rather, the witness has evidence/reasoning/logic that will be most convincing -- merely being a witness DOESN'T make you correct (that's the appeal to authority fallacy). Most appeals to authority are NOT legitimate because it's the logic and reasoning that determines whether something is correct, NOT who is saying it.

In this case, both the instigator (drlebronski)  and the contender (mesmer) offered customized definitions for the subject of debate RACE REALISM- which is itself not a particularly commonplace concept.

  • people who think black people are genetically inferior to white people
    • vs.
  •  real racial differences between various groups of human races.
I provided reasoning and logic as to why my definition should be preferred (to which you've currently dropped, and drlebronski didn't challenge). That's why my reasoning and logic should currently be preferred. If you cannot address me on those grounds, if you insist on your appeals to authority, you lose the argument on logical grounds.

So, at the outset, you are both working with radically different definitions of the thesis' subject.  Obviously, such a difference should be resolved before arguments are presented so that the both of you are talking about the same thing.  For most  such circumstance, I go to Wiktionary and Wikipedia first as the most popular online references and therefore most likely to achieve that shared, common semantic base necessary to productive argument.
Once again, the underlined highlights where you appeal to authority. You now add to your appeal to authority an appeal to ad populum, wherein you argue that because the definitions are popular (which you didn't even prove, btw), they should be preferred.

Every argument you've made thus far is some variation of a logical fallacy.

Now, Wiktionary says that RACE REALISM is just a euphemism for racist science so I checked WIKIPEDIA which redirects RACE REALISM to SCIENTIFIC RACISM which Wikipedia call pseudo-science.  I pointed out drlebronksi's definition was much closer to the WIKIPEDIA definition.
More appealing to authority.

I think you are right to chastise drlebronski for not defining his term outright and a total hypocrite for then  inventing your own definition.  If you don't like WIKIPEDIA's definition then find an authoritative  source with a definition that you like.  If you can't find a definition that you like online, then the chances are good that it is your understanding of the term that's problematic.
So you're now saying that I can't use reasoning and logic to make my argument, and that I MUST find a better appeal to authority LOL.

If you are just going to make up your own definition, then you can't really fault drlebronski for doing the same.  In fact, he did it first so there's not reason not to prefer his custom definition to yours.
I explained why my definition should be preferred (to which you failed to respond to). You've appeal to authority and (in one instance) ad populum (both logical fallacies). Thus, on the basis of logic, my arguments should be preferred.