I was genuinely not trying to strawman you. I don't see how you can tweet those things and not be committed to a general suppression of research you believe will be harmful of widely spread. Do you think profs. should avoid assigning The Bell Curve as reading, for instance?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
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
-
Missing heritability (there are several one can define) is not really a philosophical issue, but an expected empirical issue. It's much easier to estimate broad heritability than finding the specific genetic variants that predict, and even more difficult, cause the variation.
-
I think what the field of philosophy here really needs is for a person with dual expertise to enter the game. There are very few working behavioral geneticists who also have read deeply in the phil literature, and who want to write phil on the topic. Polymaths are very rare.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I don't like literature based expressions because these are sensitive to social desirability bias, whereas anonymous surveys are not so much. I think one should follow the approach used in climate science to gauge expert opinion on climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I don't know what you mean, interpretations of heritability. This is not like quantum mechanics interpretations. Heritability only has one meaning that everybody uses (G/P var). There are various disagrees on what one can infer from heritability wrt. malleability.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Obviously, researchers think heritability is meaningful, otherwise they wouldn't bother with all the studies. The philosophers are out of touch with the science. Note that philosophers are very left-wing so we can expect them to dislike heritability for political reasons alone.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 7 more replies
-
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.