As for educational funding, there is ample evidence it doesn't do a whole lot, but it sure costs a lot of money. Seemingly, you are committed to a policy of suppression of research that finds educational interventions doesn't work because you currently believe they work.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
Ok, then we seem a lot closer than before. :) However, you seem to have a weird combination of beliefs where you argue against race science as likely having bad consequences, but then admit you don't understand the topics well enough? Are you relying on some authority here or?
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
But there is no consensus against race and IQ hereditarianism. Every intelligence textbook emphasizes that no one knows the cause of group gaps, and the only 2 surveys of the topic show substantial numbers of hereditarians among experts. The pure enviro view is much less common.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I read the SEP article now. It's not really anything amazing, generally repeats Lewontin stuff. It also makes claims about consensus about some things, but presents no survey evidence. It does not at all engage with empirical evidence on GxE or GxG of which there is plenty.
-
In general, I think this SEP exemplifies the thing Sesardic wrote in the introduction to his book. I used to obsessively read SEP as a philosophy undergrad (around 2010), but these pages just leave me with a bit of a cringe feeling about the science presented.pic.twitter.com/zD6HXIjrWI
- 2 more replies
-
-
-
I also don't understand why you are so interested in assigning works by consensus of belief (usually, there is no consensus on some matter). Why should a prof. do that instead of making his own choices about best worth? Seems your approach will result in stagnation.
-
I mean in situations where consensus is X, but actually not-X, and everybody keeps being fed material that supports X, not properly engaging at length with the evidence for non-X because not consensus. Seems better to let profs. assign more freely to get some diversity in thought
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.