= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AdeleneDawner comments on Undiscriminating Skepticism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1329)
If you don't yet have evidence, it's not dishonest to offer to find and present it, but it is dishonest to claim that you already have it, since by making that claim you're claiming something that's not true - namely that you have already confirmed that the evidence exists.
I don't understand your point.
Is it dishonest to offer to present evidence when you are confident you can gather it?
For example, in the toaster scenario, is it dishonest to offer to produce proof that you bought the toaster? (Assume for the sake of argument that you save all of your receipts religiously and you are quite confident that you can produce the receipt if you are willing to take 20 minutes to rummage through your old receipts.)
If you offer it in such a way as to assert that you already have it, yes.
If I know that someone has a certain amount of evidence for a certain thing, then seeing that evidence myself doesn't tell me much - knowing that the evidence exists is almost as good as gathering it myself. (This is what makes scientific studies work, so that people don't have to test every theory by themselves.) But knowing that someone thinks that a certain amount of evidence exists for a certain thing is much weaker, and actually seeing the evidence in this case tells me much more, because it's not particularly unusual for people to be wrong about this kind of thing, even when they claim to be certain. (Ironically, while I remember seeing a post on here that mentioned that when people were asked to give several 90%-likely predictions most of them managed to do no better than 30% correct, I can't find it, so, case in point, I guess.)
I don't think this is an accurate metaphor; human brains don't work well enough for us to be that confident in most situations.
I don't understand what you mean by "already have it." If I know that I can pull the evidence up on my computer screen with about 60 seconds of work, do I "have" it? If the evidence is stored my hard drive, do I "have" it? If the evidence is on a web site which is publicly accessible, do I "have" it?
It sounds like your answer to my question is "no," i.e. it would not be dishonest to offer to produce a receipt but that the example I described is extremely rare and non-representative. Do I understand you correctly?
If you spend more time arguing about definitions than it would take to present your facts and settle the original point, that constitutes evidence that your motive has little or nothing to do with the pursuit of mutual understanding.
Please either present the evidence you originally offered w/r/t the correlation between race and IQ, or desist in your protestations.
Before you go attacking my motives, maybe it would make sense to you to explain why you took us into meta-debate territory. You could have easily said something like this:
And yet you chose not to, instead launching a meta debate (actually a meta-meta debate). If anyone's motives are suspect, it's yours.
Lol, the evidence I offered to produce was that a certain poster was being evasive. Yes, that's right -- you started a meta-meta-debate.
As far as race and IQ goes, I laid out my case on my blog post. You are free read it carefully and then come back if you want evidence or other support for any aspect of it.
http://fortaleza84.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/the-race-and-iq-question/
If the readers can't understand what you're referring to, the burden is on you to write more clearly. Furthermore, I object to your use of the word "Lol" in this context.
I see you cannot resist meta-debate.
Anyway, I would say it depends on how much effort and care those readers put into understanding. To any reasonable person, it was clear what I was referring to.
I have read the post in question. The heart of your argument seems to be
Could you please provide some citations, with actual numbers, for "pretty much everywhere" and "various attempts," including at least one study more recent than... let's say 1987?
I could try to, but first you must comply with Rule 4 of my rules of debate.
First tell me that you are seriously skeptical that there is a black/white difference in cognitive abilities pretty much everywhere in the world.
Then tell me that you are seriously skeptical that various attempts to eliminate this gap have failed.
I am seriously skeptical that there is such a difference "pretty much everywhere," that is, without variance along geographical, political, and economic lines.
"Various attempts have failed" taken literally means almost nothing; I am seriously skeptical that the gap has never been reduced as the result of any deliberate intervention.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Of course there is variance in cognitive abilities (as well as differences in the size of the black/white gap) along geographical, political, and economic lines. And I am not claiming otherwise.
Well are you seriously skeptical that the gap has never been substantially eliminated?