/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9381570
>it's defined
>The definition of intelligence is controversial.[6] Some groups of psychologists have suggested the following definitions:
Well, let's imply it's defined. Intelligence implied definition isn't observed, its mechanisms. This means that the mechanisms of intelligence aren't directly observed, thus only correlations which aren't causation mechanisms can be observed. Thus making IQ not science. AKA pseudoscience.

>influence of environment is stablished
If intelligence isn't even defined and its implied mechanisms aren't observed, how can these people think that implying the circumstance influences is scientific?
>just because
Already refuted. Not science.
>ethnic groups predate genetics testing
Unlike races, ethnic groups are categorized using primarily genes. "Race" is influenced by appearance judgement, implying apparent phenotype defines genotype. Thus making it not science, AKA pseudoscience.
>no
Yes. All "race" modern definitions conserve such part of appearance bias. Implication of phenotype defining genotype is not scientific. Pseudoscience.
>i understand
Yes. Scientific rigor is something pseudoscience supporters don't like. Sad!