/atheism/ - Atheism

>>10931

This. Honestly its not too far of a stretch to see one day science being able to keep people immortal, end poverty, etc. Probably not in our day but Its definitely possible

>>10987

> Science is now owned

>>10997

You don't need to dig hard for evidence to justify racism unless good goys like you keep trying to supress it. Of course socioeconomic status has an impact but that doesn't mean that it's the only factor and certainly doesn't justify ostracising a scientist for doing science.

http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/articles/Christainsen%2C%20Gregory%20B.%20%22IQ%20and%20the%20wealth%20of%20nations-%20How%20much%20reverse%20causality%3F%22%20Intelligence%2041%20%282013%29.pdf

https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/beaver-and-wright-2011-school-level-genetic-variation-predicts-school-level-verbal-iq-scores-results.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/

>science says evolution is real and god doesn't real

take that theistfags!

>science says genetics affect intelligence

noooooo! we are all somehow equal even though we're different!

>>11001

>Because the Blacks kicked out the establishment in exchange for a terrorist

Pic related, you're oversimplifying the issue.

>>10998

I'm not an expert, but I'm not sure about IQ's reliability. Take the Flynn effect, for example. A person with an IQ of 100 today would have had an IQ of 130 back in the early 1900s. If you were to interpolate this data, you'd think that our ancestors from not long ago would have been clinically retarded. And yet, many great geniuses, far more intelligent than the average person today (see: Einstein, Beethoven, many Greek philosophers) existed in the past.

And then there's the likes of Richard Feynman, who despite having an IQ of 125, have achieved things you would only expect out of someone with an IQ of 140+.

Not to say that IQ cannot be a legitimate measure, but it seems a bit flawed to me.

>>11018

> Also, white men are more likely to be incarcerated than black women

Base rate neglect.

>2010 adult incarceration rates by race, ethnicity, and gender per 100,000 adult US residents

>Male white 678

>Female black 260

>white men are 31% of population

>black women are 7% of population

If there were as much black women as white men we would expect 31/7 * 260 = 1151 incarcerated black women per 100,000

Black women are ~69% percent more likely to be incarcerated in USA than white men.

Incarceration rate is just one of the many ways of looking at a demographic in general, black people look bad in most of them including but not limited to IQ, scientific and cultural achievements, state of black dominated and black ruled countries and cities.

>>10995

This

>>10987

>>10988

>>10990

It's simple, and we can establish this without even discussing any actual science. This is going to be long, so I apologize ahead of time.

If tomorrow researchers of relevant fields at, say, Brown University attempted to publish findings that blacks are dumber, or mixed-race children have more defects, or that Jews are over-represented in high-ranking positions and this cannot be entirely explained by average merit….

….pick any allegation of great social opprobrium….

….then we all know what would happen. Word would get out through the department and soon the campus that so and so are positing bigoted statement #32-A5. The student newspaper will print bile, the (insert minority) Student Union will issue heated denouncements at the dining hall, and protests will finally emerge calling for the retraction of the findings at best, and for the researchers' firing at worst.

But it won't even take the students, as some peer of the researchers will immediately go to the department chair, or a dean or university president or the board, and explain why the findings are "problematic". They may call for retractions or firings, but also cutting off grant money if the researchers work in a field which is cost-intensive.

Then you have to consider the editorial staff of whatever journals the findings are to be submitted to, and whether they want to risk whatever non-profit advocacy groups will inevitably come after them, or whether subscriptions to the journal will fall…

We still live in an environment where you can be wrong before you are false. And how much of the impact which published findings have on the scientific consensus rest on "credibility". That is, whether the people and powers that determine whether you meet a baseline of merit give you that stamp of approval or not.

We all regularly reference professional statistics and models and findings for which we personally lack the expertise (or if not this, the means) to verify or refute. Even if we had both, you can't launch a deep investigation into every intellectual matter which arises in discussion AND deliver it in a relevant time frame. So at some point, everybody has to accept their sources based on an image of credibility. And this image comes from certification or promotion by institutions which run on office politics and public relations. Not experiments and data collection.

Pic related was an influence on the SJW's. But he had something going when he wrote that (paraphrasing):

>Knowledge isn't power. Power is knowledge