The future of the Republican Party

[GarfieldJL]

I noticed that you've cast a few red herrings and others have chased them. Let's bring this back on topic, shall we?

 

They aren't red herrings, though I'm not sure people realize what the implications of some of what I posted yet.

 

 

We wouldn't know. You haven't cited the "thing" you brought up. What specific research are you referring to? There have been many, some of which were peer reviewed -and utterly skewered by their peers.

 

http://www.au.dk/en/news/210906a

 

Having problems getting article to come up but it is concerning one of your sources.

 

Agreed. This is why I took the time to examine and evaluate the methodologies.

 

Well first two people I looked up have gotten into serious trouble concerning academic dishonesty.

 

 

I do not dispute this. Nor have I asserted it. Indeed, on of the studies I cited used students from community colleges in its sample. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

 

That is in the second source I presented concerning Academic dishonesty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn

 

 

This has zero relevance to studies I cited. Zero.

 

The fact one of the researchers you mentioned was suspended from his job for academic dishonesty in his research isn't relevent? I wasn't born yesterday, that is at least one source that just lost credibility, and that was just the first one I investigated.

 

In reference to that particular source though, I'm showing there is a systematic problem, and showing incidents in multiple states and even countries outlines that there is a problem.

 

Please find me the part where it says that teachers were intolerant towards the girl performing the experiment.

 

Oh you mean

 

But students weren't the only ones surprised that she wore a shirt supporting McCain.

 

"In one class, I had one teacher say she will not judge me for my choice, but that she was surprised that I supported McCain," Catherine said.

 

If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college.

 

"Later, that teacher found out about the experiment and said she was embarrassed because she knew I was writing down what she said," Catherine said.

-- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-13-nov13,0,2881384.column

 

Nowhere in the article does it state that teachers permitted that kind of behavior in their classrooms. It is dishonest and fallacious to assume so.

 

Considering the shear number of people, it is safe to say that teachers permitted it in the classroom, or in the halls.

[Rogue Nine]

"In one class, I had one teacher say she will not judge me for my choice, but that she was surprised that I supported McCain," Catherine said.

That doesn't sound very intolerant at all.

[GarfieldJL]

That doesn't sound very intolerant at all.

 

That was just one example, and part of it is the tone in which it is delivered, furthermore there were examples that didn't make it into the article.

 

 

 

Anyways back to SkinWalker's source here is a quote from my reference:

 

Mr Holm-Nielsen says, “There is a clear case of official misconduct on the part of Professor Nyborg. By way of disciplinary punishment, I have therefore issued Professor Nyborg with a severe reprimand. This matter is thus closed – and his suspension from duty is now revoked.”

--AARHUS University

[Rogue Nine]

Considering the shear number of people, it is safe to say that teachers permitted it in the classroom, or in the halls.

Do you have exact numbers? Did you specifically ask the child if she was accosted in the classroom or in the halls? If your answers are no, then you have no right or bearing to make this fallacious inference.

 

That was just one example, and part of it is the tone in which it is delivered,

Where does it address the tone in which it was delivered?

 

furthermore there were examples that didn't make it into the article.

Where are these examples and can you properly source them?

[GarfieldJL]

Do you have exact numbers? Did you specifically ask the child if she was accosted in the classroom or in the halls? If your answers are no, then you have no right or bearing to make this fallacious inference.

 

 

You mean to tell me that these all happened in the hallway? This wouldn't have just happened in the halls, since teachets were involved.

 

Where does it address the tone in which it was delivered?

 

Oh you mean:

 

If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college.

-- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-13-nov13,0,2881384.column

 

That was actually rather easy to find and I'm not a lit major.

 

Where are these examples and can you properly source them?

 

They are inferred they didn't give specifics in the article, but it is inferred from the article.

[Rogue Nine]

You mean to tell me that these all happened in the hallway? This wouldn't have just happened in the halls, since teachets were involved.

So in other words, you don't have any evidence to back up your statement and you're pulling this completely out of your ass. Gotcha.

 

Oh you mean:

 

-- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-13-nov13,0,2881384.column

 

That was actually rather easy to find and I'm not a lit major.

Gonna throw something you said right back at you.

 

That part is the reporter's analysis, that doesn't mean that would actually happen.

It's the reporter's analysis, Garfield. Doesn't mean it was actually a threat.

 

They are inferred they didn't give specifics in the article, but it is inferred from the article.

Show me where it can be inferred from the article. If you can't, I'm forced to believe that you're just full of crap. Thanks.

[GarfieldJL]

So in other words, you don't have any evidence to back up your statement and you're pulling this completely out of your ass. Gotcha.

 

Well considering I've seen this kind of stuff before and the shear volume of people bashing her, I'd say that teachers would have had to notice it unless they were completely incompetitent.

 

Gonna throw something you said right back at you.

 

Oh?

 

It's the reporter's analysis, Garfield. Doesn't mean it was actually a threat.

 

There is a slight difference, nice try. In my example the reporter was interviewing her. In your example, the reporter just made a supposition without any supporting evidence or testimony.

 

Show me where it can be inferred from the article. If you can't, I'm forced to believe that you're just full of crap. Thanks.

 

It's the example you tried unsuccessfully to throw back in my face.

[Rogue Nine]

Well considering I've seen this kind of stuff before and the shear volume of people bashing her, I'd say that teachers would have had to notice it unless they were completely incompetitent.

You still have not shown where you get this 'shear volume' (the word is 'sheer', by the way) data from. And you have not shown where exactly these statements by other students took place. In other words, you make suppositions on incomplete information and decide these are facts. You are quite possibly the worst researcher ever.

 

There is a slight difference, nice try. In my example the reporter was interviewing her. In your example, the reporter just made a supposition without any supporting evidence or testimony.

If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college.

All such outrage is predictable. Whether red or blue or right or left, many adults don’t get it. But Catherine Vogt sure gets it: Children learn their politics from their parents.

In both instances, the author makes a statement that were not directly stated to the student, but merely part of the article as commentary on the situation. They are both assertions made by the author, thus they are both equally valid.

 

And that first quote still does not address the tone in which the teacher delivered her statement. It neither said it was threatening or pleasant, but from the wording, it is easier to assume the latter than it is the former.

 

It's the example you tried unsuccessfully to throw back in my face.

The example above is used to illustrate the tone/threat issue. It has nothing to do with your inference that there were 'other examples that didn't make it into the article.' Please stop attacking the wrong arguments. It is dishonest and quite frankly makes you look like an idiot.

[SkinWalker]

They aren't red herrings, though I'm not sure people realize what the implications of some of what I posted yet.

 

They are. Red herrings and straw man arguments. Rather than deal with the data presented, you choose instead to erect arguments you can easily knock down. This is clearly an intellectually dishonest tactic.

 

 

http://www.au.dk/en/news/210906a

 

Having problems getting article to come up but it is concerning one of your sources.

 

It outlines the actions Nyborg's university took on him related to his participation in a different research project, which he was tasked to undertake and monitor.

 

First, it isn't clear that you understand what the problems the University had (Nyborg found it to be a matter of restricting academic freedom; the university took issue with technical flaws in a controversial research topic he monitored).

 

Second, you haven't demonstrated that the alleged issues the university took with his position on the Skanderborg project is related to the much later study I cited. Clearly they still had confidence in his academic ability since he was allowed to continue on as faculty. Clearly his later research has merit since it was vetted through the referee process of the prestigious journal Intelligence.

 

Therefore, for anything you say to have any merit; for any of your criticism to be worth reading, you'll need to evaluate the data of the 2008 research on its own merit. In order to compare and contrast with Nyborg's previous research, you'll need to demonstrate that the same flaws of methodology (assuming any existed to begin with) exist in the 2008 paper.

 

Otherwise, the comments you posted are intellectually dishonest ad hominem arguments. It appears that you're creating a straw man of the researcher's character since you're incapable of addressing the research.

 

Well first two people I looked up have gotten into serious trouble concerning academic dishonesty.

 

There is, indeed, dishonesty occurring in this discussion. It isn't, however, related to any of the research I've cited. Demonstrate dishonesty regarding this research, and I'll revise my position. Your straw man and ad hominem arguments regarding Nyborg indicate a fear to deal with the research.

 

What of the detailed analysis of Stankov I presented? You would rather erect arguments you can easily knock down that look at empirical data?

 

That is in the second source I presented concerning Academic dishonesty.

 

Sorry. This isn't related to any of the research or data I cited. Your spurious link is dismissed. Please stay on topic.

 

The fact one of the researchers you mentioned was suspended from his job for academic dishonesty in his research isn't relevent? I wasn't born yesterday, that is at least one source that just lost credibility, and that was just the first one I investigated.

 

Its only relevant to someone afraid to deal with research on its own merit. If you can demonstrate that whatever issues caused Nyborg's suspension are related to his 2008 research and you can show the flaws in his methodology, then you're demonstrating relevance. Instead, you've posted many spurious links which are red herrings, leading others down a path you want them to go, as far from the data I've presented as possible.

 

Clearly, my analysis and the data I've presented have hit a mark. I'm sorry, but they are legitimate and valid data. Particularly Stankov, who's research is empirical and not partially syllogistic the way Nyborg's is.

 

In reference to that particular source though, I'm showing there is a systematic problem, and showing incidents in multiple states and even countries outlines that there is a problem.

 

No. You haven't. You've shown that your adept at creating straw man arguments as an ad hominem toward researchers you don't like vis a vis google. You haven't demonstrated any of this "research skilz" you so boldly asserted. You've demonstrated a knack for generating red herrings to keep other participants away from data you don't wish to deal with.

[SkinWalker]

There has been some discussion on Garfield's part regarding the veracity of Nyborg's research, so I'm going to give it the same treatment I did Stankov. Fair use prevents me from simply posting the entire article, but the full paper is available in volume 37 of Intelligence, which is available at most university libraries or via public libraries either in their stacks or online access. Ask your local librarian.

 

Abstract

The present study examined whether IQ relates systematically to denomination and income within the framework of the g nexus, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY97). Atheists score 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. Denominations differ significantly in IQ and income. Religiosity declines between ages 12 to 17. It is suggested that IQ makes an individual likely to gravitate toward a denomination and level of achievement that best fit his or hers particular level of cognitive complexity. Ontogenetically speaking this means that contemporary denominations are rank ordered by largely hereditary variations in brain efficiency (i.e. IQ). In terms of evolution, modern Atheists are reacting rationally to cognitive and emotional challenges, whereas Liberals and, in particular Dogmatics, still rely on ancient, pre-rational, supernatural and wishful thinking.

 

The “g nexus” that Dr. Nyborg refers to is the “general intelligence” factor, a construct used in psychology to quantify common trends across various methods of scoring intelligence. Basically, there is an assumption that there exists a factor in human cognition that drives intelligence which may be phenotypical and an indicator of brain efficiency. While the g factor hypothesis generated a fair bit of controversy in the early 1980s, most notably from Stephen J. Gould, it has since become widely accepted with the advent of much empirical research. Wikipedia barely touches on this topic for which entire texts have been written, but I provide that link as a starting point for anyone interested in further information.

 

What Nyborg attempts to do (and appears to succeed) is to bring religiosity into the g nexus. Like Garfield is always saying, Nyborg has an agenda. Unfortunately, perhaps for Garfield, the agenda isn't so sinister. Nyborg acknowledges the scientific curiosity of the “origin, development and persistence of religion worldwide” in his introduction to the research questions. He also notes the pervasive nature of religion across global boundaries as a human condition, anthropologically relevant to understanding human cognition in general given the presence of religion in both developing and developed nations and given the diverse range of superstitions and beliefs which exist.

 

Nyborg describes his research thus:

The present study examines the working hypothesis that

dogmatism reflects a neurologically less than optimally evolved low g brain that seek supernatural guidance in ambiguous or life threatening situations. The study begins with two sets of a priori assumptions. First, high g people have a brain based biological capacity for solving complex problems, and for acting rationally when confronted with fundamental questions about existence, human nature, underlying causes, or the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”. Second, low g people lack this protection and are therefore unfairly ordained to live in a prerational world based on poorly validated evidence and little accumulated insight. They accordingly often find themselves in cognitively, emotionally, or morally challenging situations and have to use plan B, that is, to call upon easily comprehensible religious authoritative guidance and to submit more or less uncritically to culturally given stereotyped rituals. Frustration with their life may also make them seek redemption or faith in an after life.

 

Nyborg also describes Six testable syllogisms about g which defined the empirical program:

Syllogism 1

Premises 1 and 2:

Cognitively complex people typically resort to reason, science and data to reduce uncertainty,whereas people lacking this cognitive protection often resort to ancient supernatural beliefs and claims. Ergo: High-IQ people gravitate towards atheism and/or science, and low-IQ people become religious.

 

Syllogisms 2a–c

Premise 1 and 2+premise 3:

Denominations differ in cognitive complexity. Ergo, 2a: Cognitively highly complex people choose Atheism/science; 2b: Medium complex people choose liberal denominations (i.e. fairly open, critical, less committed, metaphorical, cultural heritage type), and 2c:Least complex people drift towards dogmatic denominations (committed, personal relationship with Jesus, emphasis on sinfulness, fixed rules for behaviour, and need for atonement).

 

Syllogism 3

Premise 4: Denominations of different conceptual complexity also differ in IQ. Ergo: Denominations can be systematically rank ordered by average IQ.

 

Syllogism 4

Premis 5: Denominations that differ in distribution score will according to Gaussian distribution theory also differ in the proportions of high-IQ individuals (i.e. with IQ≥120)—the group from which society primarily recruits its members for the upper positions. Obviously, the absolute denominational contribution of high-IQ members also depends on its numerical size. Ergo: Large denominations may offer more gifted individuals to occupy the upper religious and social positions in society than do small denominations, even if they do have relatively low mean IQs and Sds.

 

Syllogism 5

Premise 6:

IQ is the most important single predictor of income. Ergo: Denominations with high IQ earn more than less favored denominations.

 

Syllogism 6

Premises 7 and 8:

The indicator for the heritability of IQ goes up with age as children have more chances to actively create their own environment rather than just reacting passively to parental directions. Moreover, individuals tend to gravitate over time towards a job with a task complexity that matches their own cognitive complexity level— the so-called Gravitation hypothesis. In the present context the Gravitation hypothesis gives basis for the expectation that individuals will gravitate over time towards a non-faith/faith position with a degree of complexity that matches their own cognitive complexity. Ergo: Agnostic and Atheist persuasions become increasingly more prevalent from ages 12 to 17, and the proportion of religious believers drops accordingly.

 

Methodology

 

Nyborg conducted 12 sub-tests on sample sizes that exceeded 10,600,000 adolescents based on CAT-ASVAB97 test scores converted to IQ across 19 denominations which included Roman Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Muslim, atheist, agnostic Pentecostal, and Presbyterian among others.

Results of these data show:

 

 

The data, as we can see in the lengthy and detailed methods section of his paper, aren't from Nyborg's own survey questions, questionnaires, or subjective hypotheses. They are arrived at using existing test scores used by the Department of Defense (the ASVAB test that many adolescents take every year in high school) and use to place potential service members in jobs and specialties to which they are cognitively suited.

 

The results are clear: “white religious people trail Atheists by 5.13 IQ points. Analysis of variance on the actual number of respondents indicates that this difference is statistically significant (p=.02).”

 

In the event that Garfield sees fit to erect a straw man or send us all on a red herring (he undoubtedly will if past behavior is an example) with the inclusion of “white” in the statement above, its important to note that Nyborg, like many social scientists who study social and anthropological research questions, was merely controlling for race. In the paper itself, you can see where he applied similar controls to other social constructs like wealth and status in order to isolate the correlation itself.

 

There appears to be no basis to Garfield's unfair and dishonest strawman, red herring and ad hominem attempts to dismiss Nyborg's research when his 2009 study is closely examined. It has nothing to do with his previous research nor has Garfield shown any indication that he understands what, specifically, Nyborg was accused of -an accusation that was so insignificant that the result was a reprimand. An accusation that is unrelated to this research.

[GarfieldJL]

He got in trouble for deliberately using bad data to manipulating and misrepresenting data to skew the results, if he did that for one study, what's to say he didn't do it for another.

 

By the way, you can't argue the issue SkinWalker, because it was the college he is employed at that suspended him.

 

@ Rogue Nine

 

I'm more than literate enough to read and comprehend what something is saying. I could draw up other examples to illustrate the teacher's threats from one of Mercedes Lackey's books if you like, I believe Alta which is book two of the Dragon Jousters would work.

[Rogue Nine]

@ Rogue Nine

 

I'm more than literate enough to read and comprehend what something is saying.

And [...] biased enough to draw conclusions that are based on the flimsiest of premises based on what you've read.

 

 

I could draw up other examples to illustrate the teacher's threats from one of Mercedes Lackey's books if you like, I believe Alta which is book two of the Dragon Jousters would work.

Don't bring in any other data or information unless it directly related to the article. Prove your point from the article. If you cannot, then sorry but I'm forced to believe that you are again drawing faulty and fallacious conclusions and that your argument is null and void.

[GarfieldJL]

Don't bring in any other data or information unless it directly related to the article.

 

Oh it's simple really, that statement by the teacher was a threat, I had even talked with some others on campus and they could see the threat in it.

 

I don't have the particular book in front of me but the style of the threat is very similar.

 

 

Prove your point from the article.

 

I generally don't lecture you about how you debate. If I can prove it using outside examples I'm going to use outside examples.

 

 

If you cannot, then sorry but I'm forced to believe that you are again drawing faulty and fallacious conclusions and that your argument is null and void.

 

Your opinion doesn't make it fact.

[Vaelastraz]

He got in trouble for deliberately using bad data to manipulating and misrepresenting data to skew the results, if he did that for one study, what's to say he didn't do it for another.

 

By the way, you can't argue the issue SkinWalker, because it was the college he is employed at that suspended him.

 

Why don't you take a look at the data at hand? This is just unbelievable.. Skinwalker went to great lengths and posted details about the methodology yet all you do is spout something about how the guy got into trouble somewhere..

 

If you want to show that the data is biased, skewed bad or whatever, do that by referring to flaws in the methodology. You can't just go "oh that guy has a reputation for blalblalbla, therefore the data is false".

[GarfieldJL]

Why don't you take a look at the data at hand? This is just unbelievable.. Skinwalker went to great lengths and posted details about the methodology yet all you do is spout something about how the guy got into trouble somewhere..

 

If you want to show that the data is biased, skewed bad or whatever, do that by referring to flaws in the methodology. You can't just go "oh that guy has a reputation for blalblalbla, therefore the data is false".

 

Actually in this case I can, because the reason I'm saying the study is biased and untrustworthy, is the exact same reason that he got suspended for. Furthermore if it had been at the university I'm at that Professor wouldn't have been suspended, he would have been fired. For all we know he just didn't get caught that time.

[Rogue Nine]

Oh it's simple really, that statement by the teacher was a threat, I had even talked with some others on campus and they could see the threat in it.

I talked with some other people on my campus and they didn't see any threat in it. Do you see how this kind of reasoning doesn't prove anything?

 

If I can prove it using outside examples I'm going to use outside examples.

Except you haven't proven anything. Fact of the matter is, you can't prove that teachers teach their students political positions from this article.

 

Your opinion doesn't make it fact.

This is rich, coming from someone who draws their own fallacious conclusions and accepts them as facts without any support whatsoever.

[GarfieldJL]

I talked with some other people on my campus and they didn't see any threat in it. Do you see how this kind of reasoning doesn't prove anything?

 

I'm saying it's that blatent...

 

 

Except you haven't proven anything. Fact of the matter is, you can't prove that teachers teach their students political positions from this article.

 

That's why I also brought in other articles such as the one about the Swedish documentary.

 

This is rich, coming from someone who draws their own fallacious conclusions and accepts them as facts without any support whatsoever.

 

[sarcasm]Rrrriiiiggghhhhttttt......[/sarcasm]

[ET Warrior]

He got in trouble for deliberately using bad data to manipulating and misrepresenting data to skew the results, if he did that for one study, what's to say he didn't do it for another.

You know what is to say that he didn't? That fact that nobody has called him on it, and nobody is able to point out where he manipulated bad data and skewed the results in this study. If such bad science had taken place someone would assuredly step in and publish a paper about it since it would be a quick and easy way to gain some notoriety in the scientific community.

 

You're obviously just going to continue sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the actual science that you cannot debate because you either

 

A) Don't understand it

or

B) Are aware that you would be unable to refute it and would have to accept it as empirically valid.

[SkinWalker]

He got in trouble for deliberately using bad data to manipulating and misrepresenting data to skew the results, if he did that for one study, what's to say he didn't do it for another.

 

Not that it's relevant anyway, but what data was his in regards to? Please cite the research. If you can't, don't sweat it. There's no reason to worry about it since this was from several years ago and the current research I'm citing is completely different and its data stands on its own merit.

 

By the way, you can't argue the issue SkinWalker, because it was the college he is employed at that suspended him.

 

I'm not interested in arguing the issue. Its irrelevant since it isn't related to the data I cited.

[EnderWiggin]

Actually in this case I can, because the reason I'm saying the study is biased and untrustworthy, is the exact same reason that he got suspended for. Furthermore if it had been at the university I'm at that Professor wouldn't have been suspended, he would have been fired. For all we know he just didn't get caught that time.

 

Perhaps you should take a philosophy 101 class.

 

Every single thing you assert is based off of what we like to call a "fallacy of logic." This one would fall between 'ad hominem' and 'poisioning the well.' Use your research skills to figure out what they are.

 

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

You know what is to say that he didn't? That fact that nobody has called him on it, and nobody is able to point out where he manipulated bad data and skewed the results in this study. If such bad science had taken place someone would assuredly step in and publish a paper about it since it would be a quick and easy way to gain some notoriety in the scientific community.

 

Because he hadn't been caught at it because that's what the peers want to believe. You always need to be skeptical of research that says someone is smarter than someone else based on ideology, because it is the same kind of research the Nazis did.

 

You're obviously just going to continue sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the actual science that you cannot debate because you either

 

If you consider propaganda to be science.

 

A) Don't understand it

or

B) Are aware that you would be unable to refute it and would have to accept it as empirically valid.

 

I'm going with

 

C) You can't realize when something is propaganda.

or

D) You are aware that it nothing more than propaganda yet you cling to it because it supports your ideology.

 

Not that it's relevant anyway, but what data was his in regards to? Please cite the research. If you can't, don't sweat it. There's no reason to worry about it since this was from several years ago and the current research I'm citing is completely different and its data stands on its own merit.

 

It had to do with another one group is smarter than another group study. So the data's merit is seriously lacking.

 

I'm not interested in arguing the issue. Its irrelevant since it isn't related to the data I cited.

 

Considering it was the same type of study, I think you know perfectly well that it is relevent.

 

Perhaps you should take a philosophy 101 class.

 

Any other personal jabs?

 

Every single thing you assert is based off of what we like to call a "fallacy of logic." This one would fall between 'ad hominem' and 'poisioning the well.' Use your research skills to figure out what they are.

 

There is also something known as research integrity and the first source I looked up the background on, has little to no integrity.

[ET Warrior]

Because he hadn't been caught at it because that's what the peers want to believe.

So you are trying to tell us that there is not one single researcher in the entirety of the world who is interested in refuting a correlation between lower IQ and religion?

 

You always need to be skeptical of research that says someone is smarter than someone else

You always need to be skeptical of research period. That is how science works, don't accept anything without analysis.

 

If you consider propaganda to be science.

Maybe you could finally take the time to demonstrate exactly how it is propaganda? Show us the flaw in the method? Find the bias in the sampling?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Any other personal jabs?

It's not a jab of any sort, you have a poor grasp of logic and taking a Philosophy class might help to remedy that since it's essentially proving things through logic and almost nothing else.

[GarfieldJL]

So you are trying to tell us that there is not one single researcher in the entirety of the world who is interested in refuting a correlation between lower IQ and religion?

 

Oh you mean like the one where a scientist at the Smithsonian Institute was discriminated against because he believed in God?

 

You always need to be skeptical of research period. That is how science works, don't accept anything without analysis.

 

Considering I do a lot of research, I already know that, and the fact that SkinWalker's source has gotten in trouble for skewing data, doesn't speak well of his source's credibility.

 

Maybe you could finally take the time to demonstrate exactly how it is propaganda? Show us the flaw in the method? Find the bias in the sampling?

 

Why don't you look up on wikipedia the Nazi Party there is a subsection in that article dealing with how they utilized 'research' to prove their discriminatory attitudes as legitimate. Seriously, there are a few other historical examples that fit this too, none of which are something that speak highly of this kind of research.

 

It's not a jab of any sort, you have a poor grasp of logic and taking a Philosophy class might help to remedy that since it's essentially proving things through logic and almost nothing else.

 

As one whom possesses a minor in History, I can say with relative certainty that those whom do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Quite frankly the research that SkinWalker is using looks rather similar to the kind of research that was seen out of Nazi Germany.

[ET Warrior]

Oh you mean like the one where a scientist at the Smithsonian Institute was discriminated against because he believed in God?

I fail to see how that in any possible way relates to the point I was making.

 

Considering I do a lot of research, I already know that, and the fact that SkinWalker's source has gotten in trouble for skewing data, doesn't speak well of his source's credibility.

Yes, we heard you the first five thousand times, we realize that you don't believe his source is credible because of one unrelated instance in his past where he was reprimanded for poor investigative techniques on a different topic. What you have failed to do is point out how that relates to the research we are discussing. If he was already in trouble for poor research techniques then wouldn't it stand to reason all subsequent research would be scrutinized far more? And therefore any bias or data manipulation would have been found out?

 

Why don't you look up on wikipedia the Nazi Party there is a subsection in that article dealing with how they utilized 'research' to prove their discriminatory attitudes as legitimate.

And why don't we just keep on discussing completely unrelated tangents. Or perhaps you could use more than circumstance and assumptions and actually empirically demonstrate how Nyborg's research is in any way the same pseudo science. Demonstrate the error in his methods. Explain the flaws in reasoning.

 

As one whom possesses a minor in History, I can say with relative certainty that those whom do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

As one who does not possess a minor in history I can also say that I too have heard that quote. Relevance?

 

Quite frankly the research that SkinWalker is using looks rather similar to the kind of research that was seen out of Nazi Germany.

Really? Were the methods the same? Same sample size, same sampling method? Or is the only similarity the fact that they're centered around intelligence?