Nope, it's true. Another poster managed to come up with ONE paper, and it has not even passed strenuous peer review. And he could come up with 100 more, and it would still not even be a blip on the radar, compared to the mountains of science from every field that all point in the same direction.
Yes - you can probably find something in that work that isn't thoroughly racist. But, far better work has been done on this topic. And, I don't believe the non--racist parts of that work have ever really been disputed. As far as I can tell, those who reference that work do so BECAUSE of the racist angle.
The central assumption of that book is that the author could find or create methods of measuring intelligence independently of other factors. And, that central assumption is absolutely BS. Thus everything that follows from that assumption is also BS.
The mission and methods of education are not improved by following the false assumptions concerning IQ and other facotors that this book claims are fundamental.
I didn't claim this field of science is dead. That's certainly not true at all. I said the notions of IQ and its measurement that are seen as fundamental by that author are dead.
The preponderance of science is once again against you. I'm amazed at how perfectly contrarian your views are on every issue of science. I don't know that I've ever seen you support a significant element of established science - even including how science works. It's lke you want to be respected for your science while denying every important result ever reached right down to the root methods of scientific process itself.
Actually, I'm simply not guided by politics. I'm unfailingly faithful to the principles of science. I follow them wherever they lead, without reference to political fashion.
I said nothing at all about politics. You're unfailingly faithful to anything contrarian. If the entire world of science accepts a principle, you will be there to say it's false - LOL!!
Well, no. I'm an adherent and advocate for 99% of it. And btw, there's nothing more political than your rallying cry for "established science."
Yo're even a contrarian on that! You site Kuhn on these issues, but he doesn't agree with you on the notion that scientific consensus is merely politics. In fact, he recognizes that consensus as a critical objective in revolutionary moves forward in science.
The common threads are: 1) government and quasi-government agencies being caught in past lies (not admitting a mistake is as good as lie). 2) Incompetency of the aforementioned. 3) near collapse of our anti-trust laws regarding news media. 4) Willful ignorance 5) insipid stubbornness 6) Greed 7) Pride
Nope. Bolding mine. “Why should a change of paradigm be called a revolution? In the face of the vast and essential differences between political and scientific development, what parallelism can justify the metaphor that finds revolutions in both? One aspect of the parallelism must already be apparent. Political revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense, often restricted to a segment of the political community, that existing institutions have ceased adequately to meet the problems posed by an environment that they have in part created. In much the same way, scientific revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense, again often restricted to a narrow subdivision of the scientific community, that an existing paradigm has ceased to function adequately in the exploration of an aspect of nature to which that paradigm itself had previously led the way. In both political and scientific development the sense of malfunction that can lead to crisis is prerequisite to revolution.” ― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
But in fact, you are incorrect. Science is always being refined, but the concepts of IQ and its measurement are both alive and well.
No. It is false and absurd. You mean pal review. That is a ludicrous, absurd claim that only proves, once again, that YOU HAVE NEVER READ A PEER-REVIEWED PAPER in a journal of climate science, and know nothing whatever of the relevant science.
Inside The Bayesian Priory 17 hours ago Willis Eschenbach Anyone who thinks that a description of reality is only worthwhile if it matches the output of absurdly simplistic climate models is not worth my time to investigate.
Anyone reading Mr. Eschenbach's blogs should do so knowing his actual credentials, which include a lack of scientific education and experience.
No, he's not. Few are. I'm just pointing out the weakness of credentialism as a substitute for substantive engagement.
2020 Review: Observational And Modeling Studies Show Temperature Falls As CO2 Rises By Kenneth Richard on 28. December 2020 Share this.. A 2020 observational study (Zhang et al., 2020) determined “temperatures of atmospheric air with substantially higher CO2 concentration (ranging from 3200 ppm to 16,900 ppm) were lower than that with the lower CO2 concentration (480 ppm)” and a 2020 modeling study (Drotos et al., 2020) assessed that when CO2 goes beyond 4 times preindustrial – 1,120 ppm – “climate sensitivity decreases to nearly zero” because the climate cyclically cools by 10 K. So the science is settled, right? . . .
