frame



Best Fallacy Content

  • Why Do Otherwise Intelligent People Delude Themselves With Religion?

    @just_sayin
    The Mayo clinic does mention several of the 1200 studies.  For example it said:
    18 prospective studies

    Just stop. It's clear from reading the titles of some of these articles that they aren't specifically studying any proposed relationship between religion and longevity.  You're seriously proposing that, "A nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents" is a more reliable data set than a worldwide study specifically investigating the relationship between religion and lifespan? What an absolute joke. I picked just one of these out at random:-

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/135910539900400301

    Older residents (N 5 1972) in California were investigated prospectively for association of volunteering service to others and all-cause mortality. 

    So this study isn't even about religion. It's about volunteering. Here's another:-

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22021605/

    These women had healthier behaviors... In this bright, middle-class, 20th century sample, religiosity among women seems to be part of a generally healthy lifestyle.

    So this study concerns healthier lifestyles among middle class American women, not religion.

    Here's another:-

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9786287/

    Religious affiliation (n = 542) and church attendance (n = 455) were examined in a consecutive sample of medical patients aged 60 or older admitted to Duke University Medical Center

    So this study examines differences between religious church goers and religious non-church goers. It doesn't even include the non religious!

    And another:-

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10454399/

    Social and productive activities that involve little or no enhancement of fitness lower the risk of all cause mortality as much as fitness activities do. This suggests that in addition to increased cardiopulmonary fitness, activity may confer survival benefits through psychosocial pathways. 

    So social activities. Nothing to do with religion specifically.

    STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE.

    just_sayin
  • Why Do Otherwise Intelligent People Delude Themselves With Religion?

    @Nomenclature
    Since my argument has a lot of evidence in support of it, I'll spend the post talking evidence, rather than personal attacks.

    @Nomenclature said:
    You haven't shown 1200 studies from anywhere, so you are very evidently suffering from some type of delusional mental health problem.
    The Mayo Clinic article said:
    A majority of the nearly 350 studies of physical health and 850 studies of mental health that have used religious and spiritual variables have found that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes

    They are referencing the work done in  Koenig HG. Religion, spirituality, and medicine: application to clinical practice. JAMA. 2000;284:1708.  So not only are you saying the Mayo Clinic is an unreliable source because they are a religious cult, but the Journal of the American Medical Association is a religious cult group also?  Sounds like more special pleading, since no evidence of the claim is provided.

    Longevity Studies


    The Mayo clinic does mention several of the 1200 studies.  For example it said:

    18 prospective studies have shown that religiously involved persons live longer.

    References to each of those studies are provided:
    1. Comstock GW. Fatal arteriosclerotic heart disease, water hardness at home, and socioeconomic characteristics. Am J Epidemiol. 1971;94:1-10. 
    2. Comstock GW, Partridge KB. Church attendance and health. J Chronic Dis. 1972;25:665-672.
    3. Comstock GW, Tonascia JA. Education and mortality in Washington County, Maryland. J Health Soc Behav. 1977;18:54-61. 
    4. Berkman LF, Syme SL. Social networks, host resistance, and mortality: a nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents. Am J Epidemiol. 1979;109:186-204.
    5. House JS, Robbins C, Metzner HL. The association of social relationships and activities with mortality: prospective evidence from the Tecumseh Community Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1982;116:123-140.
    6. Wingard DL. The sex differential in mortality rates: demographic and behavioral factors. Am J Epidemiol. 1982;115:205-216. 
    7. Zuckerman DM, Kasl SV, Ostfeld AM. Psychosocial predictors of mortality among the elderly poor: the role of religion, wellbeing, and social contacts. Am J Epidemiol. 1984;119:410-423.
    8. Schoenbach VJ, Kaplan BH, Fredman L, Kleinbaum DG. Social ties and mortality in Evans County, Georgia. Am J Epidemiol. 1986;123:577-591.
    9. Seeman TE, Kaplan GA, Knudsen L, Cohen R, Guralnik J. Social network ties and mortality among the elderly in the Alameda County Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1987;126:714-723.
    10. Bryant S, Rakowski W. Predictors of mortality among elderly African-Americans. Res Aging. 1992;14:50-67.
    11. Goldman N, Korenman S, Weinstein R. Marital status and health among the elderly. Soc Sci Med. 1995;40:1717-1730.
    12. Kark JD, Shemi G, Friedlander Y, Martin O, Manor O, Blondheim SH. Does religious observance promote health? mortality in secular vs religious kubbutzim in Israel. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:341-346.
    13. Strawbridge WJ, Cohen RD, Shema SJ, Kaplan GA. Frequent attendance at religious services and mortality over 28 years. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:957-961.
    14. Oman D, Reed D. Religion and mortality among the community dwelling elderly. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1469-1475.
    15. Glass TA, de Leon CM, Morottoli RA, Berkman LF. Population based study of social and productive activities as predictors of survival among elderly Americans. BMJ. 1999;319:478-483.
    16. Hummer RA, Rogers RG, Nam CB, Ellison CG. Religious involvement and U.S. adult mortality. Demography. 1999;36:273- 285. 
    17. Koenig HG, Hays JC, Larson DB, et al. Does religious attendance prolong survival? a six-year follow-up study of 3,968 older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1999;54A:M370-M376.
    18. Clark KM, Friedman HS, Martin LR. A longitudinal study of religiosity and mortality risk. J Health Psychol. 1999;4:381-391.
    So apparently, according so those who wish to dismiss the 1200 studies about the benefits of religion the following organizations are religious nut jobs: Journal of Chronic Diseases, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, American Journal of Epidemiology, Social Science & Medicine Journal, the British Medical Journal, Demography - Population Association of America, The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, and the Journal of Health Psychology.  

    It seems unlikely that such highly respected health journals are religious cults. And the size of most studies seems substantial.  As the Mayo Clinic reported:
    A recent meta-analysis of 42 studies of nearly 126,000 persons found that highly religious persons had a 29% higher odds of survival compared with less religious persons (odds ratio [OR],1.29 [95% CI, 1.20-1.39]). The authors could not attribute the association to confounding variables or to publication bias  - see McCullough ME, Hoyt WT, Larson DB, Koenig HG, Thoresen C. Religious involvement and mortality: a meta-analytic review. Health Psychol. 2000;19:211-222

    Cardiovascular Studies

    The Mayo Clinic reported:

    Studies have found that religious involvement is associated with less cardiovascular disease.

    Some of the studies that show less cardiovascular disease for religious people are:

    •  Friedlander Y, Kark JD, Stein Y. Religious orthodoxy and myocardial infarction in Jerusalem—a case control study. Int J Cardiol. 1986;10:33-41. 
    •  Goldbourt U, Yaari S, Medalie JH. Factors predictive of long-term coronary heart disease mortality among 10,059 male Israeli civil servants and municipal employees: a 23-year mortality follow-up in the Israeli Ischemic Heart Disease Study. Cardiology. 1993;82:100-121. 
    • Oxman TE, Freeman DH Jr, Manheimer ED. Lack of social participation or religious strength and comfort as risk factors for death after cardiac surgery in the elderly. Psychosom Med. 1995;57:5-15.
    • Koenig HG, McCullough ME, Larson DB. Handbook of Religion and Health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2001. 

    Lower Hypertension Studies


    The Mayo Clinic reported:
    Studies have found that religious involvement is associated with lower blood pressure and less hypertension. 
    Studies that show religious people have lower hypertension cited are:
    • Koenig HG, McCullough ME, Larson DB. Handbook of Religion and Health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2001. 
    • Koenig HG, George LK, Hays JC, Larson DB, Cohen HJ, Blazer DG. The relationship between religious activities and blood pressure in older adults. Int J Psychiatry Med. 1998;28:189-213.
    • Walsh A. Religion and hypertension: testing alternative explanations among immigrants. Behav Med. 1998;24:122-130.
    • Hixson KA, Gruchow HW, Morgan DW. The relation between religiosity, selected health behaviors, and blood pressure among adult females. Prev Med. 1998;27:545-552.

    General Physical Health Studies


    The Mayo Clinic reported:

    Studies have shown that religious involvement is associated with health-promoting behaviors such as more exercise, proper nutrition, more seat belt use, smoking cessation, and greater use of preventive services.

    Studies that show these results listed are:

    • Oleckno WA, Blacconiere MJ. Relationship of religiosity to wellness and other health-related behaviors and outcomes. Psychol Rep. 1991;68:819-826.
    • Wallace JM Jr, Forman TA. Religion’s role in promoting health and reducing risk among American youth. Health Educ Behav. 1998;25:721-741. 54. Strawbridge WJ, Shema SJ, Cohen RD, Kaplan GA. Religious attendance increases survival by improving and maintaining good health behaviors, mental health, and social relationships. Ann Behav Med. 2001;23:68-74.
    • Idler EL, Kasl SV. Religion among disabled and nondisabled persons, II: attendance at religious services as a predictor of the course of disability. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 1997;52: S306-S316.
    •  Koenig HG, Larson DB. Use of hospital services, religious attendance, and religious affiliation. South Med J. 1998;91:925-932.
    •  Comstock GW, Partridge KB. Church attendance and health. J Chronic Dis. 1972;25:665-672.
    •  Koenig HG, McCullough ME, Larson DB. Handbook of Religion and Health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2001.

    Lower Depression


    The Mayo Clinic reported:
    Religious salience was associated not only with less risk of depression but also with recovery from depression among those who were depressed at the start of the study (especially those in poor physical health).

    •  Robins LN, Helzer JE, Weissman MM, et al. Lifetime prevalence of specific psychiatric disorders in three sites. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1984;41:949-958. 
    •  Braam AW, Beekman AT, Deeg DJ, Smit JH, van Tilburg W. Religiosity as a protective or prognostic factor of depression in later life: results from a community survey in The Netherlands. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1997;96:199-205. 68. Koenig HG, George LK, Peterson BL. Religiosity and remission of depression in medically ill older patients. Am J Psychiatry. 1998;155:536-542.
    • Propst LR, Ostrom R, Watkins P, Dean T, Mashburn D. Comparative efficacy of religious and nonreligious cognitive-behavioral therapy for the treatment of clinical depression in religious individuals. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1992;60:94-103.
    • Razali SM, Hasanah CI, Aminah K, Subramaniam M. Religious– sociocultural psychotherapy in patients with anxiety and depression. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1998;32:867-872. 71. McCullough ME, Larson DB. Religion and depression: a review of the literature. Twin Res. 1999;2:126-136.
    I could go on, but the overwhelming number of studies that say religious people have better health outcomes may just depress those who think there are no benefits to faith.  And as the above documentation shows, people without faith are more likely to experience depression and have more struggles with it.  

    Now I can keep going for some time on the health benefits for people of faith (after all there are at least 1200 studies that show that), but I will be merciful and pause for now.  I will just conclude by observing that a majority of the evidence, and the evidence from the most trusted and reliable sources, shows that people of faith have better health outcomes.

    There was too much evidence for my argument to cover  in this post. So I didn't get to the fine tuning evidence. I'll follow up with more evidence for the other points later.  
    Nomenclature
  • Why Do Otherwise Intelligent People Delude Themselves With Religion?

    @just_sayin
    First let me mention the personal and societal benefits of faith:.  As the Mayo Clinic points out:

    I've repeatedly debunked your claims in another thread, and the very fact that you are simply cut and pasting the exact same trash without acknowledging any of the criticism levelled against it only serves to emphasise the point raised in the OP. The Mayo Clinic is religiously biased, sells religious services to its patients, and was started by a group of nuns and a devout Christian doctor. Furthermore, as I have repeatedly demonstrated, your data is contradicted by numerous other studies which you simply refuse to acknowledge. For example:-

    What role does religion play in health and longevity? This question has long been debated, with the religious claiming that their faith keeps them healthy. But is this the case? The data appears to show the opposite.

    https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/which-religion-has-the-longest-life-expectancy/

    You are simply repeating the exact same fallacies I debunked mere days ago, as if I haven't already debunked them, which is as pathetic as it is frustrating. 

    In fact all the fundamental forces and many other universe parameters are incredibly fined tuned for life. 

    I have also debunked this you ridiculously deranged halfwit. You are assuming, entirely absent supporting evidence, that:-

    A. This universe is the first universe and that there have been no prior failures.

    B. The existing conditions of the universe could have been any different.

    C. A habitable universe is some sort of evidence for a magic space fairy.

    Again, you simply pick and choose the things you want to acknowledge and simply ignore everything else like you are a 9 year old child in a Pick 'n Mix store. Here's another quote from Paul Davies which you seem to have had trouble finding:-

    Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it - Paul Davies, Physicist 

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jun/26/spaceexploration.comment
    just_sayin
  • Why Do Otherwise Intelligent People Delude Themselves With Religion?

    @Nomenclature
    First let me mention the personal and societal benefits of faith:.  As the Mayo Clinic points out

    A majority of the nearly 350 studies of physical health and 850 studies of mental health that have used religious and spiritual variables have found that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes...During the past 3 decades, at least 18 prospective studies have shown that religiously involved persons live longer....Recent prospective studies have carefully controlled for potential confounding variables.

    Now anti-God extremists may try and say the Mayo Clinic is a religious cult, however the vast, vast majority of research shows that religious people have better health outcomes.  Here are just a few areas identified in their report from the 1200 studies:

    • Greater longevity
    • less cardiovascular disease
    • lower blood pressure
    • Less hypertension
    • Get more exercise
    • Better nutrition
    • More likely to use a seat belt
    • Less smoking
    • Less anxiety
    • Less Depression
    • Less anxiety
    • Less alcohol and drug abuse
    • Less suicide
    That alone seems to suggest that people of faith have better health outcomes.  And there are many societal benefits to faith as people who attend religious services are much more charitable with their time and money.  

    People who are religiously affiliated are more likely to make a charitable donation of any kind, whether to a religious congregation or to another type of charitable organization. Sixty-two percent of religious households give to charity of any kind, compared with 46 percent of households with no religious affiliation. - Philanthropy Today

    Further people of faith are less likely to commit violent crimes, 

    So, there are personal and societal benefits of being a person of faith.  Yet, the real discussion is that believing in God is not just reasonable it best fits the universe we find ourselves in.  An intelligent agent best describes the incredibly fine tuning of our universe.  

    Cosmologists pointed out the odds of a life permitting universe from the cosmological constant -  1 part in 10^120. If it were just slightly more positive, the universe would fly apart; slightly negative, and the universe would collapse.  That number is bigger than the number of particles in the universe (not  atoms, but the things that make up the smallest things in our universe) and it is bigger by a huge margin.

    Cosmologist Roger Penrose pointed out that the odds of the initial low entropy state of our universe occurring by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10 10(123).  It seems unrealistic to believe that our universe was so highly ordered in the initial conditions that permitted a life supporting universe.  

    The Gravitational Constant and the weak force constant (sometimes called the Hubble constant) is also fine tuned.  As Paul Davies notes:

    "If G, or gw, differed from their actual values by even one part in 10^50, the precise balance against Λbare [the "true" cosmological constant] would be upset, and the structure of the universe would be drastically altered. ...If Λ were several orders of magnitude greater, the expansion of the universe would be explosive, and it is doubtful if galaxies could ever have formed against such a disruptive force. If Λ were negative, the explosion would be replaced by a catastrophic collapse of the universe. It is truly extraordinary that such dramatic effects would result from changes in the strength of either gravity, or the weak force, of less than one part in 10^50." -Paul Davies, Physicist 

    In fact all the fundamental forces and many other universe parameters are incredibly fined tuned for life.  The atheist would look at all of these statistically implausible numbers and just say - "just believe that this is random.  Please, I know it looks bad for our argument, but just have faith that against all these overwhelming statistics of how finely tuned our universe is, it isn't finely tuned."

    Personally, I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  If you came upon an iPhone on a beach, you could reason that naturalistic forces made it, that given enough time and random chance, inevitably a working iPhone would be created.  But most of us realize, it is much more likely to think that an intelligence made the iPhone.  And the odds of an iPhone being created by random forces is a small number when compared to all of the fundamental forces of the universe to be so precise.  
    Nomenclature
  • Why Do Otherwise Intelligent People Delude Themselves With Religion?

    @Dee so have you got an answer to my argument or not otherwise you lose because saying dum things about me doesn’t count so your like girlie boy and you lose the argument because you didn’t have one any way.
    OakTownA
  • Why Do Otherwise Intelligent People Delude Themselves With Religion?

    @Nomenclature ;Who says that you are entitled to an opinion? I never read anywhere that people with an IQ u

    Im so sorry that I offended you there mr girlie boy boss because I never thought you would ever say anything like that but anyway since you failed to debate the points then that meens that you lose and it’s no wonder any way because what you said was so illogical and girlie any way.

    OakTownA
  • racism

    Maxx quote    First, crime does not equal intelligence. Crime is a social issue.

     Low IQ is very much a factor in criminal behaviour.     Prisons are mainly full of du-mb people who do the most stu-pid things and end up in jail.

     

    Maxx quote     The main one is poverty and the stats are higher for them simply because there are more blacks born in poverty than whites.

     That premise is disproven.    Throughout the world, very poor societies have existed that were very law abiding.    The average Londoner in 1900 was extremely poor by today's standards, yet London was considered the safest city in the world, where much to the astonishment of other police forces, British police alone had no need to carry sidearm's.      At 0.2 per 100,000, England and Wales had during the first half of the 20th Century, the lowest homicide rates ever recorded for a technologically and industrially advanced society.  A few years ago, London's homicide rate topped New York's.    And the main reason for that was (wait for it, wait for it, wait for it) the new phenomena of imported Jamaican African black "yardie" gangs who, deprived of guns by British law, just go around stabbing each other to death with gay abandon.  

     

    Maxx quote    There are also, many high collar crimes of those with high intellect who make a career out of crime.

     There are.   But you would much prefer to walk at night in those suburbs where white collar criminals reside, than in certain areas of London or the USA that are black ghettoes, where even tourist guides inform tourists not to enter.

     

    Maxx quote     There are also many crimes of whites who live in poverty.

     And these areas are the places which smart people avoid.   Because they are populated with people from the bottom strata of white society, who have low intelligence.   Once again, crime and IQ are linked.  One part of Sydney you should avoid if you chance to visit is, Claymore, a public housing estate suburb which the Australian SAS use to train soldiers in dangerous situations.

     

    Maxx quote      You are claiming the stats are higher for blacks because of their lack of intelligence, which is a fallacy.

     No, it is a truism.   US blacks have a measured IQ of 85, unsurprisingly, they are very disproportionately represented in serious criminal behaviour.

     

    Maxx quote      If you go to an all black community; in which I assure you, there are plenty, in where the neighborhood is nice and well kept, the parents have a nice income, all the children in the area have proper care and a nice school environment, then you will find the crime rate almost non existent.

     I have heard that at least one suburb like that exists in Los Angeles, but I can never remember it's name.    The principle here is that all races have people with very low, low, average, above average, and gifted intelligence.     The problem is that the "Bell Curve" shape of IQ is displaced by race.   Smart Africans do exist and we can even identify with them as our social equals.    The suburb I was referring to was actually created by developers for the emerging black middle class of doctors, dentists, lawyers, and engineers, and it was so noted for it's safe streets.    So much so, that even Asians started moving into it.    But too many Africans and even Hispanics have very low IQ, and they seem to have a genetic predisposition to engage in violent behaviour.    Which is why so many of them end up in jail.

     

    Maxx quote     Also I am not talking in dualistic terms as you said; for there is a distinction is what you consider as such. I am also not mistaken that human brains are the same at birth, that is backed by science.

     Just saying that it is backed by science, does not mean that it is backed by science.   Especially today, where eminent scientists like Watson get sacked from their jobs if they deviate from what the government wants the public to know.    Or, where various university scientific and historical departments are at war with each other, being divided by ideology.

     

    Maxx quote    The difference is what "affects" the brain at birth. Things like what traits are passed on genetically, mental illnesses and mental abnormalities and so on. Other than what affects the brain at birth, the brain is born a blank slate, ready to assimilate, absorb, and learn what is programed into it by the environment and society.

     Your logic needs a bit of work.    You can not claim that a newly born brain is a "blank state" and then say that it is already programmed.     You are once again mixing up the basic philosophies of two, diametrically opposed schools of Psychological thought.    You are sometimes a Behaviourist who proclaims that the brain is at birth is a blank, and all behaviour is learned.    And at other times a Evolutionist, who thinks that behaviour is a product of both nature (genetic programming) and nurture (social learning)      That equates with claiming that you believe in the state control of the means of production and distribution, and free market capitalism, at the same time.

     

    Maxx quote    Also i am not talking of bussing or segregation. That does not equal intelligence.

     I used those examples to show that you are wrong.    The Behaviourist social theory was that all people were equal in every way.    They claimed that equal education opportunities would produce equal outcomes in social advancement.    They had their chance to prove that they were right with bussing, and with the various US federal and state government programs that the Behaviourist assured, would increase black and Hispanic IQ to white levels.    But those publicly funded social experiments failed.    Thereby disproving the Behaviourist idea that everybody is equal in every way.    Which is why Psychologists started drifting away from Behaviourism, and went first to Cognitive Psychology, and later drifted towards Evolutionary Psychology.

     

    Maxx quote    What I said is all things being equal, and aside from abnormalities, all babies have the same chance at equal intellect.

     Sadly, that was proven to be wrong.     Behaviourists today, if any still exist, I think would be regarded as cranks.     Amusingly, one of my Psychology text books recounted the tale of an academic conference where the distinguished guest speakers included some of the most celebrated and respected academics in the USA, who represented both the Behaviourist and the Cognitive point of view.    The aim of the conference/debate was to try and ascertain which side was right?     Unfortunately, this resulted in an all out brawl on the stage where the distinguished guests started punching the sheet out of each other.    Even science has it's passionate supporters.

     

    Maxx quote    For example, Take a well-to-do white couple, intelligent, nice income and so on, who adopt two 6 month old babies, one black and one white. Given the same care, send them to the same schools and so on, each and both have the same opportunities as the other to become as intelligent as anyone. Unless you can somehow prove that the skin color of one means he can not learn like the other.  You are going by nothing but social labels.

     If you study Psychology, even as an amateur like me, then I would urge you to examine the results of the TRE (Twins Reared Apart) studies.     Gaaaah, I have work to do, and it looks like I'm going to be obliged to sit here and type, to educate you as to why you are wrong?   But I will do it for you because I think that I have an obligation to advance science, and decrease ignorance

     The TRA studies came about because of a circumstance involving the adoption of twins.    When twins (or triplets) were adopted out, the welfare authorities would always split them up, believing that it would be easier to find homes for the babies if the twin siblings were not kept together.     Years later, heart rending stories of adopted twins, who grew up never knowing that they had a twin, began meeting by chance.    Either through circumstance, or because people who knew both twins claimed that they knew some somebody who looked just like them.

     This gave geneticists and psychologists an unexpected opportunity to study the effects of twins raised in different households.     The first conclusion that they made was that genetics and crime were linked.    To begin with, it was already know that adopted children had a statistically significant chance of becoming criminal, than for non adopted children.    This was assumed to be because adopted children usually came from the lowest class, where criminal behaviour was endemic, which suggested a genetic link.      But with these adopted twins, reared in different households, it was found that if one twin turned criminal, then the probability that other twin would turn criminal, was done at a rate which was statistically significant.

     It did not follow that if a twin turned criminal that the other would automatically turn criminal, just that the rate of criminality of the two of them turning criminal, was statistically significant.    This phenomenon was explained in this way      Adopting parents were usually from financially stable and even middle class parents, who were the sort of parents who could be relied upon to give good instruction to their adopted child as to their behaviour.    This confirmed that even with a child who was genetically prone to criminal behaviour, good parenting could be crucial in keeping that kid on the straight and narrow .     It confirmed that the Cognitive and Evolutionary psychologists were right, and the Behaviourists were wrong.

     

    Maxx quote    You are like the individual who sees three bell peppers, one green, the other yellow, and the other red, and assume that they are different and contain a sub species based on nothing but skin color and any imaginary imperfections you associate the color to have.  I can take a new yorker and a southern hillbilly and easily differentiate between the two based on features, habitat, values, morals, ideas, what food they eat, and speech patterns.

     Regardless of whether they reside in Appalachia or New York, if they are from the same race, then that should easily be apparent.

     

    Maxx quote     Do you consider one to be a sub species? Or does one have to be a different color? .Also I never claimed that humans could not mate with an actual sub species such as Neanderthals'

     Okay, I am debating with two people at one time, and I might have got your premises mixed up.

     

    Max quote    I said Homo sapiens do not have any sub species except by labels.

     Which is like saying that brown bears do not have any sub species except by labels.

     

    Maxx quote    As well, Neanderthals had 99.7 percent of genetic material as homo sapiens.

     If you say so.    Which is about the same as humans and chimpanzees.

     

    Maxx quote    Also who is to say whom is the sub species, considering science says we evolved from them .

     Could you please rewrite this question so that I can understand what it means?  

    Nomenclature
  • Are races Equal?

    MSCS quote.     Please demonstrate how qualified biologists and anthropologists with doctorates, are somehow incorrect, while your assertion that they are wrong is somehow right.

     Too easy.   We in the western world live in an age of self flagellating educated elitists who seem to have rediscovered Marxism, and contrary to history and logic, see Marxism once again as the answer to all of the world's problems.      This ideology has really become fashionable among the diplomaed elite who advocate for "equality" while looking down their noses at their working class inferiors.     They also think that they are morally superior to the business and managerial class, who are usually their long suffering parents.    Many of them are low IQ ethnic minority graduates who's worthless Artz diplomas will never get them a job outside of a "make work" government department.    So they support politicians who advocate for socialism, who will forgive their student loan depts, and give them a job.

     This is why universities today, with their useless "gender studies" and "black studies" courses have become such hotbeds of neo Marxism, where professors who will not toe the party line will get physically attacked and harassed.     The idea is to force academia conform to the Italian Marxist Philosopher Antonio Gramsky's idea that the best way to spread The Revolution was to ignore trying to get the loyalty of the working class, it was to take over the universities of higher learning where the devotees of socialist social theory could have more influence.   From there, they can even intimidate and revise science, to conform to their new socialist reality.

     In this they have been very successful, but like every socialist idea before it, it can't work because the more successful it becomes, the more of a shambles it makes of the communities it controls.   Examples, California, Cincinnati, Detroit, Chicago, and in Australia, Alice Springs.        Every leftist run community eventually becomes a basket case, holding out the begging bowl to any authority above it to bail them out of their economic and social stu-pidity.     Economically, neo Marxists can not run a chook raffle at the local school fete.   As for BLM, no cash bail, and "defund the police?    Hahaha.  What could go wrong?   You can only shake your head in pitying wonder at how educated ideologues can be so stu-pid.     The Greeks called stu-pidity based upon arrogance "Hubris."

     Directly answering your question as to why the new diplomaed scientific elites toe the party line, is because they know, in good old Soviet science style, that their careers, and especially their hopes of promotion, depend entirely upon their slavish allegiance to the Party and it's dictates.  So, revisionist science and revisionist history is all the rage in western universities today.    And, if any academic refuses to toe the Party line, they can always turn loose their Artz grad brown shirts mobs to burn down libraries, prevent right wing speakers from addressing students in public forums, and jostle those academics who are still free thinkers.             

     Once governments, universities, or brown shirt mobs start intimidating scientists by sacking them from their universities, destroying their careers, or forcing them to change address to avoid the howling mobs who support your own opinion, then any pretense to academic and scientific impartiality goes right out of the window.   

     

     MSCS quote    How on earth is it related to that? Thus far, there has been no evidence to describe any sort of causation between race and IQ, if you wish to cite The Bell Curve, then that book only pertains to the statistical relations of IQ when compared to race and social status. The fact of the matter is that you have yet to provide any causative evidence how the genetics of African Americans usually predispose them to a lower intelligence when compared to other 'races'.

     "The Bell Curve" is a serious work of science which gave (like Watson) the real reason why some races are dysfunctional.     In the complex modern western world where a certain level of IQ is absolutely essential to compete with others for social advancement, some ethnicities are not intelligent enough to compete.   All they do is become an endemic welfare and crime problem.    However, their low IQ makes them vulnerable to the empty promises of socialism, which promises them either equality or equity, if they just vote for a bunch of Elmer Gantry politicians, who just want to use them to get elected.    Then these crooked politicians can engage in influence peddling, or just reap the fruits of power and prestige.  

     I even gave you a perfect example of how easy it was to see that some ethnic groups, like Australian aborigines, obviously have very low intelligence.    All I had to do was show how they behaved in their own communities, where "white privilege" and "unconscious white racism" hardly applies.     That example was undeniable reality.     But denying reality is what neo Marxists need to do in order to promote their potty and always failing social theories, so you denied it.  

     

    MSCS quote   it would be very reliving if you could finally provide some causation for your claims, thus far you have only demonstrated correlation between IQ and genetics, and a weak one at that. If IQ and genetics are causatively linked, then please, source a link and demonstrate the causation.

     Already given.  First,  "The Bell Curve".   Second,  the fact that one of the world's leading geneticists agrees with me, and had his career destroyed for giving his expert opinion. Third, that Arthur Jenson was persecuted by brown shirt mobs who's opinions you agree with, for even suggesting that genetics MIGHT be responsible for the fact that government educational programs, which were supposed to raise minority IQ's, failed miserably.   Fourth, objective observation of minority behaviour.     Here is another link that I am sure you will not click on, because you do not want to see with your own eyes that your opinion is self evidently wrong.    Which you probably already know anyway.  

     CHICAGO ENGLEWOOD HOOD / INTERVIEW WITH NEIGHBORHOOD GANG/ YOUNG CHARLIE & KING DMOE - YouTube

     

    MSCS quote  Most people would also agree that 1000 years ago, the average person living in Europe was significantly less intelligent than the current average person presiding in Europe. In fact, a person living a thousand years ago in Europe would by today's standards likely be considered an id-iot. This is because of the lack of basic education in Europe a thousand years ago, at least when compared to today's standards. Why does this matter? This matters because it demonstrates how intelligence is fluid and changing, rather than being rigid, as it would be if intelligence was completely or mostly hereditable, which is what you appear to be suggesting. Instead, intelligence is based more off the environment on which a person grows up in, specifically the level of education a person recieves.

     Yes, I agree with that.    As I have written previously, group collective IQ can be related to the length of time a person lives in an advanced society.   Education can make people smarter over time.     Maybe in another 500 to 1000 years, those di-mwits in the Chicago Englewood hood will have a genome evolved enough to have average intelligence.   But what we are talking about on this topic, is the here and now.

     

    MSCS quote   This is a factually incorrect statement. Formal theories behind race only began to appear around the 1850s, and today are largely disregarded as pseudo-scientific nonsense.

     I would agree with part of that.    The 1800's were a time of unprecedented scientific discovery.    Most scientists could not be intimidated by governments and the church too much, because they were usually independently wealthy gentlemen.     But today, most scientists involved in the scientific examination of social issues, work directly for the government.  Because of that, science today is wide open to corruption by politicisation, in the same way as the US Justice Department and the US FBI has been corrupted by politicisation.    Scientists in the 1800's had no social or political restrictions on them from researching topics which are these days considered taboo.     Inferences could be made about race without electorally significant minority groups screaming their heads off and demanding that research on certain subjects by scientists be banned.      As for 18th century pseudo science, some of the theories that scientists of the day examined ( like Phrenology) were bunkum, but it was science itself that decided whether a scientific claim was valid, or not.       Today, science is the captive of governments who decide who gets the research funding.      Scientists must support whatever false narrative that governments want to use to control populations, and great woe shall betide them if they don't toe the government line.

     

    MSCS quote     While there were informal classifications of race prior to 1850, those were not based on any basis, and were simply based on the simple mentality of "us and them". The idea of formal classifications of humans into different taxonomical groups had not yet reached any formulation prior to 1850, and thus the idea of race as you describe it did not exist yet.

     As already explained, the 19th century was a time of unprecedented scientific research and discovery.   Sooner or later, the same biologists who were discovering and classifying new species and sub species every day, got around to looking at the human species and it's sub species.   And then they started classifying the sub species of humans in the same way that they classified sub species of animals.   You seem to think that this was insidious?    I say it was logical, understandable, and normal.    

     

    MSCS quote     Furthermore, the idea of 'race' as a whole is clouded with issues, and has been by an large rejected by scientists, for example, a study by the NIH in 2013 concluded that traits such as skin color, cannot be used to determine human racial groups, as they are simply adaptive traits in a response to a different environment which happens as populations of a species move to different areas that have different temperatures.

     I get the idea that you are cutting and pasting this?    No matter.    At least I got you doing some homework, and I can pick apart pseudo science logic as well a I can pick apart yours.   Your brain  might grow some unbiased neuronal pathways yet.

     

    MSCS quote    Skin color and other physiological methods cannot be used to determine race since there is no scientific criteria for choosing one adaptive trait over another to define human races, or sub-species. Thus, there is no such thing as race among homo sapiens.

     Gee, that's funny.   We can see that Grizzly Bears are just brown bears that are smaller, have a "grizzled" coat of fur, and that they are much more aggressive than brown bears.  And we can use our brains to figure out it was their adaption to their particular environment that made them differ from brown bears and become a sub species.    How is it that genetic adaptation to different environments can cause brown bears to evolve into something identically different, with a different diet, and a different personality, but exactly the same factors can not work with humans?   I don't know who wrote this rubbish that impresses you so much, but it was written to impress people who want to BELIEVE, not people who know how to think critically.    

     

     MSCS  quote  (or cut and pasted)       Furthermore, the definition of race is fraught with holes. Since I am genetically distinguishable from everyone else, am I my own race? If race can then only be defined by groups of people, both my and my sibling would constitute the same race as we share common DNA and share a common ancestry and thus we are our own unique race.    Therefore, can race be broken down into divisions of family units?  

     Even a 13 year old would not be impressed with such "logic".   If I was you, I would have been too embarrassed to post up an argument like that to support my premise.    But I suppose as a politically correct wokeist, you have to go with whatever scant "logic" that you have got?

     

     MSCS cut and pasted     What defines one group of people as a race, and another group of people as another race?

     Too easy.    Pure bred sub species of humans are as identifiably different to each other as brown bears are to Grizzly bears, or are to Kodiak bears.     Who wrote this rubbish?

     

    MSCS cut and pasted      Why can't they be the same race, or instead of being simply two different ones, perhaps a dozen different races?

     Jesus, I think that the guy who wrote this rubbish just listened to John Lennon singing "Imagine" and he decided that he could make scientific facts fit his social wishful thinking?   All he had to do was a little pushing and shoving of the inconvenient facts.

     

    NSCS cut and pasted       Race is ultimately an extremely flimsy term,

     Yet it is used in everyday speech.     It is like saying that "flock, herd, gaggle, or school, are "flimsy terms"  because they are not numerically specific.

     

    NSCS      and so dividing people intro groups of race will not achieve anything.

     It won't achieve the sort of race blind utopia which the dreamers dream for, that's for sure.    Because human beings are tribal and territorial.   Any ideology which has to muddy the water, massage the facts, and intimidate scientists, is the ideology of people who are down in the garden, dancing with the fairies, and listening to "Imagine."   

     

    NSCS quote    I will requote the scientific article that I sourced and from which it is disproven that humans can be classified into subspecies or 'races':

     Fair enough.   Submitting cut and pasted articles is acceptable, so long as it is not done all of the time.    I want you to use your brain to think up your own premises.   Who knows?  I might even get your brain's critical analysis circuit to start functioning normally?

     

    NSCS cut and paste    "Modern human genetic variation does not structure into phylogenetic subspecies (geographical 'races'), nor do the taxa from the most common racial classifications of classical anthropology qualify as 'races' (Box 1).

     What we have here is a classic example of revisionist thinking by a member of the diplomaed elite.   It is an example of the "Taxonomy War" now raging in biology departments, where devotees of neo  socialism try to suborn science, in good old Soviet and CCP style,  to give their wacky ideology some scientific credibility.    It  equates with the "History Wars" now raging in university history departments, where revisionist neo Marxists "historians" try to air brush history to conform to their new narrative, in good old Soviet and CCP style.

     

     MSCS cut and paste.      The social or ethnoancestral groups of the US and Latin America are not 'races', and it has not been demonstrated that any human breeding population is sufficiently divergent to be taxonomically recognized by the standards of modern molecular systematics." - Nature Genetics, 2004

     Okay, you have a "scientific" paper which supports your view.    But just because you have posted one side of a scientific dispute, does not make it the unbiased, objective truth.      At best, it can be considered one side of a scientific debate.    At it's worst, it is just Marxist ideology dressed up as science. 

     

    MSCS cut and paste      The article above demonstrates that it has been proven by geneticists in modern times that there exist no valid human subspecies.

     It only proves that like in every other university department in the western world, there are left wing academics who support a particular world view, and like the "historians" in Australian universities, they have no qualms in massaging the facts to conform to their new, supposedly world saving, ideology.

     

    MSCS quote     The article also dismisses old racial divisions(which would be independent of inter-breeding) to qualify as unique races, or subspecies.

     Soviet and Communist Chinese "scientists" did the same thing.     Have a problem with science?    Then use political power to promote some house trained politically correct mouthpieces to say that science has changed it's mind.  It now agrees with the party.

     

    MSCS quote      You, on the other hand, have been unable to prove to any level of accuracy that human sub-species do infact exist. While I have clearly demonstrated that sub-species, infact, do not exist for humans. Thus you have the burden of proof for your claims.

     Complete rot.      I have proven that science has recognised the concept of race since Linnaues first created the taxonomic system of genus, species, and sub species classification.    All you can do is to claim that the neo-Marxist revisionist concept of science is now the real science.

     

     MSCS quote      The AABA is an international association of biological anthropologists, and although it is based in the United States, it is independent of any one government as it is a private organization and run internationally.

     The question begs, who finances it?     Who pays the piper?     George Soros?

     

    MSCS quote    Furthermore, I'm not entirely sure how the repression of the idea of race is some sort of a government conspiracy as you suggest.

     Then you are not thinking very hard.

     One of the world's leading geneticists had his career destroyed, Galileo style, for giving his expert scientific opinion about race and IQ, and he was sacked from his government job.     All over the western world, historians, geneticists, and scientists are being intimidated into silence, and left wing governments are either sacking scientists themselves, or are conspicuous in their absence in defending academic freedom.    If you can't see it, then try looking over your ideological blinkers.

     

    MSCS quote   All the bell curve does is statistically correlate race with intelligence levels. This has been the essence of your argument thus far. Whenever I try bringing it up, you state that I am misusing the fallacy, which becomes very arduous to deal with. I cannot argue with someone who does not address the fallacies in his argument and thus does not fix it.

     Which is another way of saying, "I don't care what proof you offer, I don't care how many reasoned arguments that make sense you submit, and I refuse to acknowledge your self evident facts.   I believe in something which will SAVE THE WORLD, and get the continued admiration of my peer group of diplomaed Brahmans, and that trumps anything you say."

     

    MSCS quote    If anything, shouldn't governments be supporting the idea of race?     After all, it creates deep divisions in society that thus allows people to be easier controlled and manipulated. What would be the incentive of any government, of trying to corrupt science, and repress scientific racism, which is what you are advocating for?  

     You got the logic backward, as per usual. 

      Australian governments of the right and the left were once creditably racist.      They correctly realised that as politicians, their primary duty was to protect Australians, not adopt the increasingly fashionable cosmopolitan view that all races were equal.    Which just happens to be the formula for social self suicide.     Both left and right supported the White Australia Policy.    But over time, the socialist side realised that importing crime and welfare prone ethnic groups was be a real bonus to their hopes to stay in power forever.( just like the Dems in the USA realise it today)        They could divide and conquer the country with identity politics.   And the importation of dysfunctional ethnic groups would create massive job opportunities in the public service, who are one of the Left's main voting demographics.    The more crime and welfare prone ethnicities, the more social security officers, the more social security fraud investigators, the more social workers, the more police, the more government defence lawyers, the more courts, the more translators in every government department, and the more prisons, and prison officers.

     When one professor at Macquarie University warned the socialist government of the time that the importation of Africans into Australia would create a serious crime problem, surprise, surprise, he was sacked from his university as a "racist."     Surprise, surprise, he was in time proven right.  

     Sudanese migrants to Australia are so du-mb and violent that it is almost impossible to find a job for them outside of government employment.    And surprise, surprise, even though Sudanese only comprise 0.16% of the total population of the state of Victoria, Sudanese-born offenders made up 7% of individuals charged in home invasions, 6% of those in car theft offenses, and 14% of individuals charged with aggravated robbery offenses in 2016. Australians born in Sudan also had the highest imprisonment rate of any immigrant group in Australia, with imprisonment rates at nearly three times the Australian average in 2014. Only last week the news reported the case that a 13 year old Sudanese boy in Victoria had finally been remanded in custody awaiting trial for 181 offences.   Another 13 year old Sudanese boy has been charged with murder.       One Sudanese man got 17 years jail for raping 6 Australian women within 4 days of arriving in Australia. 

     Please explain how "unconscious racism" or white discrimination" was responsible for that?   I DEMAND THAT YOU ANSWER THAT FERKING QUESTION? 

       Anyone with the capacity for reasoned thought can easily see what the problem is.   As James Watson told the reporter, and as The Bell Curve rightfully explained, some races have very low intelligence and they are extremely violent.   They are not the sort of people you would want to allow to immigrate into an advanced society.    And to underline that point, in a very rare case of political impartiality, the main left and right political parties in Australia both agreed that they just can not keep importing Sudanese people into Australia.    They are too much of a problem, and no amount of moral posturing and anti racist virtue signalling can deny that.    Nor can politically correct police officials fiddling the statistics to conform to the ideals of multiculturalism, do it either.         Sudanese people are now banned from immigrating into Australia by political consensus.     Is that racism?  You bet it is.   And it is also common sense based upon self evident objective reality.     Like Darwin, Watson was right.

     

    MSCS quote      You did not address a single on of my points in the argument I posted on January the 23rd, including:1. The comparison between Laos and China. 

     You submitted a document supposedly listing the different IQ's levels of the populations of nations around the world.    And you were not bright enough to realise that you just destroyed your own premise that everybody is biologically equal, with identical Bell curves of IQ's   

     

     MSCS    The comparison here is that if race is a key factor in intelligence, why do countries of the same race have such widely differing IQ levels?  

      Either everyone is biologically the same race with identical IQ's, or they are not?   You can't have it both ways.      You posted up a link which destroyed your own egalitarian ideology.   Thank you for that.  I didn't know that you had switched sides?    Welcome to the racist club.   

     

     MSCS quote    If their race would be the same, then by your own logic the IQ levels between the countries on average should be negligible, however, this has not been the case. - Although you did attempt to counter this by claiming that those in China consider those in Indonesia a fundamentally different 'race', this response ultimately leads into my second issue.

     I pointed out the fallacy of your link by telling you it was obviously preposterous because it listed Israel second last in it's list of nations ranking nations to IQ levels.    I also pointed out that Asians themselves do not even consider themselves one race.    We lump them all together as "Asians" for convenience, but Indonesians and Philippines are a hybrid sub species of blacks and Asians.     As for the Chinese, they consider themselves a separate race from every other race.    And as I wrote to you before, that must be true because Chinese scientists agree with the CCP.    And since you don't think that science can be corrupted or intimidated by governments, even though I have given you examples of them doing just that, then it must be true.    Please stop skimming my replies and then claiming I did not answer your points.

     

    MSCS quote   2. The second issue of my argument was the flimsy definition of race itself, to which you agreed on previously. Race is defined as "any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry". When you imply Indonesians are a separate race from Chinese people, you are entering into a slippering slope argument. Why? Because if we are to divide race up based on national lines, why not on geographical lines as well?

     They normally are.    Since sub species of humans change their appearance to conform to local environmental conditions, sub species are usually connected to particular geographical areas.

     

    MSCS quote.     Why can't those on Sumatra, and those on Batavia(Indonesian islands) be considered different races?

     Another reductionist add absurdum premise that any 13 year old would laugh at.  

     

     MSCS quote    After all, their average genomes are slightly different, and thus they have slightly different physical appearances and thus constitute their own race.

     If they are identifiably different from each other, then they themselves would consider themselves different races.     In Australia, "indigenous" means both "aboriginal" and "Torres Straight Islanders"    Both of these races consider themselves different races.    Torres Straight Islanders flat out refused to be lumped together with "aboriginals" as one race, much to the dismay of the politically correct.         

     

    MSCS quote    Then why don't we break it down into cities, and then we break race down into smaller and smaller populations, until we ultimately get to family groups. Thus, every family group constitutes it's own race. Even then, we can take it one step further and define every single living person on the planet as their own race, as they have their own physical appearances and different genetic make-ups.

     Another reductionist ad absurdum premise that you should be too embarrassed to even submit.

     

     MSCS quote   3. Another issue I brought up was the cultural and historical situations that have lead to differing situations for those of Jewish and those of African descent in America. Specifically regarding income and IQ.

     Sorry, I don't remember that.   I am presently dealing with two ideologues on two topics on DebateIsland at the same time, and I genuinely can't remember everything thing I have addressed to both of you.     But post it up again and I will tear it to shreds, like I always do.

     

    MSCS    4. You also did not address the fact that phenotype doesn't necessarily denote genotype of a given organism.

     I didn't, because you did not bother to explain how such esoteric biological terms are germane to this topic?    It looks like the old Australian Army truism, "baffle them with bullsheet."

     

    MSCS     5 You also did not address my argument regarding the evolution and origin of different human populations. And how genetically similar populations can have unique diseases and characteristics attributed to them.    And that 'races' having unique genetic diseases does not prove much of anything as they have been mixing independently with each other, and thus have created unique diseases and general characteristics in their populations due to inbreeding.

     Once again, you just destroyed your own premise that races do not exist, because everybody is equal.    The existence of race specific diseases like SADS in Asian men proves conclusively that races of people are not biologically identical.  This is what happens when you just cherry pick random facts from "scientific" papers without a general understanding of how these facts should fit into your false narrative.

     

    MSCS quote.    Quantity does not equate quality bud. If you go on and on writing a wall of text to support your assertions with a small amount of evidence, then your argument is meaningless as it has no factual data to support it.

     Quantity is indicative of the fact that I know my subject and I can fully support my premises with even lengthy reasoned arguments, giving easily understandable examples, bud-dy.     That must confound you.    You were conditioned to believe that those who oppose socialist social theory were just deplorable cretins, and you are surprised that even a lowly electrician like me can easily throw your crazy leftist ideology back on the garbage pile of history, where it belongs. 

    MineSubCraftStarved
  • "Pope the Dope" Francis says being gay is not a crime, WRONG!

    @Nomenclature
    At the time of Jesus, Rome controlled the region.  Homosexuality was tolerated by Rome and Greek cultures, and even considered a higher form of love among some philosophers.  In Palestine, brothels catered to all proclivities, including homosexuals.  So if Jesus had wanted to speak out against homosexuality as he did many other things, he could have done so.  Jesus spoke out on many of the practices of the Pharisees and Sadducees, that's what got him into a lot of trouble.  It seems illogical to think he would confront the Jewish religious power brokers of his day, and be afraid to speak out on other topics where general society was more tolerant.
    OakTownANomenclature
  • Do We Create Our Own Truths?

    @John_C_87
    No, sorry that is not what makes a truth self-evident.

    Yes it is, John. If the premise that the world is round is true, then the conclusion the world is not flat is self-evidently true.

    The transition started here ......and was started by you Nomenclature...

     Over a premise of a round world being a self-evident truth. By calling the world round it is never automatically a sphere shaped, circles are round yet lay flat, pitch and rest at an angle, and cross a vertical plane and appear as a straight line. We then began to move on to the principles of geometry where the fact a round circle is a difference to an oval circle. I can point out how wrong Pi is by saying a diameter is still just a chord in a sphere as well as circle. Spheres in computer graphics are made up of planes created by two 90 degree angles which are then deformed and scaled.


    Nomenclature

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch