Emil O W Kirkegaard

I understand that, but I'd like to differentiate 'HBD' from many of the people that advocate 'HBD', as we would do between, for example, a theory and people that attempt to popularise the theory in public discourse. I hope that makes sense.

what do you mean by advocate hbd? like physicists advocate gravity? ???

oh. and human biodiversity isn't a theory. we know that individuals and pops differ biologically.

I disagree: I work in philosophy of science and my thesis is on this particular area, in fact. If you believe that HBD isn't a theory, then you are likely operating with a different use of the word 'theory' than I am (e.g. as 'nothing but an educated guess and with no support').

now that i've answered your questions, perhaps you would answer mine. what do you mean by human biodiversity being a theory?

It's a theoretical system (i.e. a Lakatosian 'hard core' with a set of auxiliary hypotheses and background knowledge) that, if treated as empirically predictive by an epistemic community, is classified as 'empirical; if not, then it is not classified as 'empirical'.

Theories need not be empirically corroborated in order to be classified as theories; it's just whether or not they are statements that attempt to describe some feature of observed phenomena (which are, themselves, types of lower-order theories).

She means this. Hbd is the thing to be explained as evolution is. Various theories attempt to do so, eg evolutionary psych ones for sex differences. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory …