No. They can publish as many bad articles as they want, & I lose reputation each time I try to review them. Effective Gish Gallop strategyhttps://twitter.com/Mjreard/status/865226628527468544 …
-
-
I think you can cite an analogue of Noah's point: if you've investigated and dismissed 2 representative articles, assume it's all garbage.
-
But many excellent articles making IQ-partly-nonhereditary point. Neither obvious Murray's right, nor does Murray say 100% is genetic.
-
If someone gave me the two best articles arguing for nonhereditary IQ differences, I would expect them to be excellent.
-
That's not the hypothesis being discussed, though. To refute the claim of a hereditary IQ differences, you'd need to, well, refute it.
-
I mean, you can never prove a negative. I think "IQ differences are often nonhereditary, here's some reasons these might be" is enough.
-
You should know this! Bayesian evidence against the hypothesis is easy - if the hypothesis is specified clearly. Hereditary>0 isn't a claim
-
I'm not sure there are two papers making or refuting any kind of Bayesian argument.
-
No, but there are badly argued informal pieces like this. That's the best anyone has - ergo it can be ignored.
- 1 more reply
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.