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.
-
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 -
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.