/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12466143]

How do we know what's true and what isn't. Like how do we know if race and IQ are correlated or not, should I just trust that it's pseudoscience. It seems like people are just hesitant to do any research on it and they desperately want any results to say it's not true. Seems like a dishonest way of doing science, but it's totally debunked according to trusted sources. What do I believe.
Most refutations against are just that it's "racist" and not anything that actually disproves it, and even the best refutations are really nitpicking so much that I've never seen even half that scrutiny applied to anything else.

[Anonymous No.12466163]

Maybe just try and look around you for your own epmpirical knowledge?
If you trust a contemporary paper more than you trust your own intuition I'm not sure what to tell you that will make it better for you. If you're scared of your intuition then don't have opinions.

[Anonymous No.12466165]

>>12466163
Intuition isn't science.

[Anonymous No.12466170]

>>12466165
No it isn't but the best scientists and engineers always have it

[Anonymous No.12466177]

>>12466170
To follow why, think of Neumanns quote on the worlds complexity. Without the complexity of our brains and its intuition we'd be nowhere at all

[Anonymous No.12466180]

>>12466177
I don't care mate, I'm not gonna believe something without proof. Things aren't always as they seem, stars aren't just tiny dots.

[Anonymous No.12466194]

The only thing you can really do is constantly question all of your own beliefs and be willing to change them at any time based on the best available evidence you have. We can't ultimately be certain that anything we believe is actually true.

[Anonymous No.12466197]

>>12466180
Enjoy being a slave to papers with knowledge that will degrade in a couple of years or less

[Anonymous No.12466199]

>>12466143
start with Descartes

[Anonymous No.12466211]

>>12466180
>stars aren't just dots
Are you listening to yourself? We know that because of intuition and a need for knowing. If you think science is about truth (what is that?) you're lying to yourself. Science is about what we can say, and when we cant say, we trust our intuition.

[Anonymous No.12466214]

>>12466199
Mate I know what epistemology is just tell me if I should trust the academic expert scientific consensus on race and IQ and other such things.

[Anonymous No.12466230]

>>12466214
I'll just repeat what that anon said. Start with descartes.

[Anonymous No.12466250]

>>12466214
what's the consensus exactly?

[Anonymous No.12466263]

>>12466250

[Anonymous No.12466277]

>>12466263
>wikipedia
Also you're on a page called scientific racism, what is that? You're not on a page called iq differences.

[Anonymous No.12466286]

>>12466263
wikipedia is edited by a bunch of kikes

[Anonymous No.12466299]

>>12466286
That's not very scientific of you.

[Anonymous No.12468221]

Bump

[Anonymous No.12468258]

>>12466180
This is a really distressing post, as it shows just how far /sci/ has fallen into mediocrity.

[Anonymous No.12468262]

>>12466143
is it a question?

[Anonymous No.12468306]

>>12466143
So another race and IQ thread has been posted on [insert place here]. Here is a copy pasta I've written to answer often repeated questions:

[General explanation about race and IQ]
You may be aware of the phrase "nature versus nurture". Scientists take different groups of people and test their IQ. Sometimes the groups have different IQs. We want to know how much of the differences are due to nature (genetics) and how much of the differences are due to nurture (environment). You may see some people point to IQ differences between [group A] and [group B], and point to genetic differences between [group A] and [group B]. The argument would go, "[group A] and [group B] have different IQs and different genetics, so IQ is caused by genetics". No reasonable scientist would argue that genetics doesn't play a role in IQ; although they would argue that the conclusion stated before is overly simplistic as it doesn't account for all the variables such as environment. Unfortunately most people don't have a significant background in neurobiology or genetics, and so they are easy to fool. There are many results that environmental conditions can cause reduced IQ, such as lead poisoning. There are many results that genetic disorders can cause reduced IQ, such as fragile X-syndrome. There have not been good studies on IQ between [group A] and [group B] where the effects of environment have been removed. Since it is difficult to account for environmental differences, it would be feasible to identify genetic differences between [group A] and [group B], then look for animals which have "homologous" (similar) genes, then test the effect of changing those genes on the intelligence of the animal.

[Anonymous No.12468431]

This is a good source.
https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
There is a large portion of pseudorationalists who try to pass "this is sad if it is true so it can't be true" as science and rationalism. Don't trust them.

[Anonymous No.12468444]

>>12468431
Can you give concrete explanation with an empiric example

[Anonymous No.12468448]

>>12466143
>How do we know what's true and what isn't.
Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.
--The Books of Bokonon

[Anonymous No.12469022]

Odd timing that I see this thread as I begin my own exploration into this subject. I've been at it a few days. I don't claim any depth of expertise - but I did have a few questions. From what I've gathered, intelligence - as >>12468306 suggests - is a function of "nature and nurture". I am reasonably sure of this, based on the few studies I've already read. Especially a study that demonstrated twins raised in the same environment have an extremely high correlation in general intelligence.
My current project is to identify specific environmental influences that impact intelligence. This would exempt radical, easily measured factors (disease, eating paint chips, and so on).
A brief, surface search hasn't revealed much data - just that rearing/environment does indeed have an influence (with some sources ridiculously claiming it's the only factor worth considering).
Can a kindly anon point me in the direction of the data I'm looking for? Search keywords, sources, etc? I've turned up a couple scholarly articles, but they don't focus on environment as much as I'd like.

A side note. It shocked me to find that the relationship between genetics and IQ is so taboo, even in modern scientific circles. It's appalling.
To be frank, if one were to throw ethics out the window - it'd be easy as hell to cement that genetics are a factor in intelligence. Just get X number of couples, and have them raise children simultaneously from each major ethnic group.

[Anonymous No.12469037]

>another iq thread
IQ is about 80% genetics but ones metacognition and the way one thinks is a large component in ability too.

[Anonymous No.12469043]

Specialized tests report back narrow sample slice of results that may indicate deviation from average...

Good luck designing a test that even begins to scratch the surface of every kind of intelligence and yet defined human metric.
We have no coherent unified topology of what even intelligence means let a lone implying a test designed by one group of people has universal utility

Even human skill and activity could be said to be its own subcategory of intelligence, trying to take one groups adept skills and imply that's the golden standard for testing is hardly useful, life skills like survival and reading and understanding your environment are hardly testable

[Anonymous No.12469352]

>>12468258
Those are some weird lookin plants

[Anonymous No.12469392]

>>12466211
>We know that because of intuition and a need for knowing.
Need for knowing, sure. Intuition, no. Intuition tells us the earth is flat and the stars are points of light on a dome. Science reveals a counter-intuitive reality.

[Anonymous No.12469401]

>>12469392
>Intuition tells us the earth is flat and the stars are points of light on a dome
lmao, maybe shitty intuition but there's good intuition. You wouldn't get it.

[Anonymous No.12469520]

>>12469022
I wrote >>12468306

Firstly, you need to learn how to use google scholar and other search tools.
You can go to google scholar and search: "IQ" and "environment" and "review"
Then you select the "since 2016" option, so you get more recent papers.
You will find approximately 56,300 results.
Similarly, you do the same thing for: "IQ" and "genetics" and "review"
You get 31,100 results since 2016.
Genetics research into IQ isn't that taboo, that's a narrative that some people like to push because they can't find the results that support their beliefs.


>Just get X number of couples, and have them raise children simultaneously from each major ethnic group.
This wouldn't account for all the environmental factors. Environmental factors aren't just diseases and toxins. Environmental factors include child abuse and bullying. It's well known that environmental factors can contribute to the development of psychiatric disorders.
You may have a white person who is the child of someone in the military, and so grew up in some school in india, and experienced psychological and physical abuse for being an outsider. You could imagine an identical copy of that person, in an alternate universe, where their family was stationed in some white majority country, where they fit in, and so didn't experience that physical and psychological abuse.
Arguably the IQ of that white person X will be different based on whether they were raised in india or some white majority country.
Similarly: If you take some ethnic minority and a white, and have them raised in a white majority area, you aren't controlling for all the environmental factors.
In fact, you could easily test the effect of environmental factors by producing two testtube babies, but genetically modifying one so that they have red hair, or black skin, or some other physical trait that doesn't affect brain cells. Growing up, kids with redhair were bullied.

[Anonymous No.12469609]

IQ is a biased measure

[Anonymous No.12469681]

>>12469392
>Intuition tells us the earth is flat and the stars are points of light on a dome
Intuition says 1/4 isn't in the Cantor set, nor any point that isn't an endpoint, yet there it is.

[Anonymous No.12469962]

>>12466143
Since 2016 and trump, the very definition of truth doesn't exist anymore. There are two sets of truths for everything.

[Anonymous No.12470335]

>>12469022
the United Nations made it taboo after the Jews won WW2, and "science" has been in the clutches of communists ever since