A Long Response to Gabriel

Gabriel managed to type a series of comments in a cooler manner, apparently in Notepad while offline, judging from the page breaks I've removed for ease of reading. (A very useful trick. Tip: I find that turning off Word Wrap before saving helps) I have written a long response and don't feel like slicing it up for the 4096 character limit. Besides, I think it's worthy of a full-blown post in itself.

Alot of people do not do much with their lives, they sit at home, play World of Warcraft, Diablo or similar games, and the most they do in socializing is when they invite their riends over for some live roleplay, I am not saying you are one of these rather pathetic people, but wanted to point out that you have shown signs of it, and most of your followers certainly seems to fit this bill.

I'll make an exception in the tone for this defense of us nerds, geeks, and weirdoes:

Translation: "Stereotypical nerdy hobbies means everything I say about science is meaningless because Hollywood loves to depict all of them as chronic LARPers in everyday contexts."

What's wrong with having a few friends over for a role-playing game? How's that any different from having a few buddies over to watch football? Or going over to a bar to chat?

Don't believe every stereotype you see in movies and TV. I tend to facepalm at the antics of those over-eager convention radicals who established the stereotypes Hollywood uses. I play D&D and Magic, but I don't even so much as own a plastic sword, though I do have a bad habit of collecting pretty dice or rummaging through common card boxes. I'm currently going neat freak on my apartment as I pause between typing.

About the absolute worst convention behavior I can imagine doing is putting together a simple, cheap costume to wear or asking Patrick Stewart to give me a moment to get un-starstruck so I can talk to him like a regular guy.

And what the hell does this red herring have to do with epistemology?

I prefer experiencing the world, that is, Learn about the real world we live in rather then sitting infront of the computer. Computers and the Internet are a great thing indeed, and sure, Wikipedia, something you have shown you truly admire (and sure, I admit taking cheapshots at you with that one, but comeone, you don't think twice before insulting me) is clearly a useful tool, but it is not the truth(tm) and this is something I think you need to realize.

I admire Wikipedia and the Internet in the same sense I admire books and radio. Contrary to what Fox News tells you, New Media are not necessarily evil.

I read blogs and search engines because they're generally faster and more relevant than the travesties of journalism that so often occur with mainstream media. The information I get from one internet source doesn't magically transform into false information just because another internet source is popular with internet cranks.

Information is information is information. No media or personal experience is magically exempt from critical thinking. Science exists so that we can collaborate and ask critical questions. When you badmouth us for daring to ask such questions, you're acting the same as any old media mogul who thinks he can issue truth from on high. Learning is a team sport, and if you don't answer our basic questions, we can't learn.

[About Peru] This is not relevant, I just wanted to state what I am doing now.

I successfully stopped myself from wondering if we ran you off. I hope this can mean you can take your time to think and communicate clearly.

When I lived in Africa just a couple of years ago, I travelled between South Africa, Botswana and Namibia trying to improve education and make it better for the people (and this is the relevant part-> ), now, to the contrary to how you act and behave, we do not insult people and degenerate others, we work on passion of Love. We want to make it better and with knowledge comes understanding, and therefore a better life.

Yes, I imagine like many other people, you can maintain a civil tone. I live in Texas, so I'm very familiar with the process of self-censorship in "meatspace." Like many people, I'm much more outspoken in "cyberspace" because I'm less likely to need to file a wrongful discharge lawsuit (that the right term?) if I find out my boss is a little too fundie and doesn't like atheists.

...no, we calmly educate them just as you would with dogs. We
do not kick or harm dogs because they are inferior, we teach them and make them understand, just as we do with the negriods when I worked there.

This problem is usually your cyberspace manners over here, not the meatspace ones. It doesn't shock me that you can be a perfect gentleman.

Of course, the other problem is that you're characterizing them as dogs. I had a Master's level spatial science course with a native Nigerian. Aside from being longwinded and having a thick accent at a class presentation, he was perfectly on the level with the rest of us. I've also been reconnecting with a black childhood friend who has apparently gone on to lead a troupe of thespians in NY. (I don't know how far back his US presence goes, but he was always doing something to keep himself busy.)

I don't intend to generalize from those two, but I would think exceptions to your theory that severe cast doubt on it, especially since there are many causes of laziness.

They know very well they are inferior, they see America, the most advanced nation the world as ever seen, they see our history and the Whites building it and want to become like us, I try to make it so, I try to teach them to become just like us and act like us. I want to Help and I am doing it as much as I can. They ask me about the White world and Why we are so great, and I teach them and let them understand that they cant live like savages anymore, not if they want to live a good life, get technology like ours and so forth.

It's true that all the first world nations have a high standard of living, and we have a lot to share and teach the world.

The problem I have is calling it "white." White skin may be correlated with a nation's prosperity in 2009, but there's no logical connect beyond that. Correlation does not imply causation. There are no "smart white genes" or any physical reason for "whites" being smarter that I am aware of to lend plausibility to that causation. As far as scientific consensus goes, we're genetically almost identical. Translate all the unique base pairs the average human has into binary code, and you've barely got a few minutes of an MP3, and by statistical odds, the vast majority of that tiny uniqueness will be parts of space-holding "junk DNA".

We aren't superior because of genetics, but because we have an infrastructure that supports and rewards intellectualism and science: We have the resources and knowledge base it takes to teach everything we know to new generations as well as give them the time to build on those things. That same infrastructure has spread to the "Eastern" world. The Enlightenment was founded on the happy accident of ideal resources in Europe and North America that gave us the stability needed to think about the world around us instead of just where the next meal is coming from. Globalization is steadily spreading those resources around to, hopefully someday, level the playing field. That's why we're hearing about a new satellite from India, and why many of my favorite video games come from Japan.

...but we cant pretent they are somehow equal to us, they know themselves they are inferior...

There's a fundamental problem with that mindset, Gabe. This may sound like a squishy after-school special, but the best way to make sure the gifted people excel is to give everyone equal opportunity and measure them by the same standards. Sometimes genius can show up in unexpected places. We can't know a person's limits without giving them every opportunity to test them. Humans are amazing things full of surprises.

You don't tell a kid whose parents never went to college that he's destined for the same blue collar work of his ancestors. Humans are very plastic creatures. That's what separates us from most other animals: Our big brains with all that neural plasticity means that we're the species with the greatest capacity for learning. Our entire way of life called "civilization" is built on the ability to pass down knowledge to new generations so that they can invent new ideas on the foundations set forth by previous generations. That same plasticity is why you shouldn't allow yourself to think you know someone's destiny before hand. The right words at the right time could cause an otherwise dull person to be inspired to achieve a greatness we didn't realize was just waiting to happen.

If I'm utterly wrong about race, and that there is some undiscovered difference in "white" and "non-white" brains, then there's no harm done: Those with great talent still succeed, and those without still fail in the ideal meritocracy. I just don't think someone should be nailed down by their family's or even nation's history. Of course, as a side note, multi-generation interracial people would be a grab bag, unless you intend to argue that some brain gene actually is connected to melanin production genes in some fashion.

The argument's the same whether we're talking about race, brain damage, family background of scholarship or lack thereof.

Well, with education and understanding, if they know they need help, they can be given it, but without understanding it, you cant. If you do not know your sick, you wont be able to treat it, and the same is here, they need to understand their place, just like dogs, but people like you need to get rid of the hatred you have in you and understand to spread love instead, just because you know something, say a dog is inferior, does not mean, which you seem to believe, you need to hate it. Thats not how to do it.

If we were instead talking about some gifted white kid from a "working class" family instead of black people from an impoverished nation, this would be exceptionally cruel and closed-minded to say about him. There were times that upper class land owners would say this sort of thing about serfs, as if they were a different species.

Treat everyone as an individual, instead of some collective drawn in the sand. That way, if you encounter a talented individual, he can rise above poor backgrounds. I'm glad to live in the modern US where we have a degree of social mobility, and hope for more. The problem I have with this "inferior/superior" thing in this quote is that it seems to me that you're just substituting one trivial phenotype for class to make excuses.

Additionally, inferiority doesn't really matter to me, just content of character. If I were to spontaneously develop some unexpected ability that made me superior to humankind, I wouldn't change a thing about how I treat them. They're still sapient, sentient beings. It wouldn't matter if some yet-undemonstrated genetic factor caused it. I don't treat the brain damaged worse than the average stranger, though I might err in the direction of protectiveness.

A thousand years ago the negriods where living on the savanna, no technology, most die at a young age.

A thousand years ago, "whites" were having a superstitious dark age after a backlash from almost getting the Enlightenment right.

White man where travelling the oceans discovering new continents and creating new cities.

Likely because, by happy accident, a lot of really good resources where far enough north that white skin just happened to be a useful adaptation. A civilization's prosperity is not determined by genetics alone, so there could be a myriad other explanations in that noise. What I'm asking for, as a scientifically-minded person, is something to filter out a genetic signal from all that noise. It's the same technique I use if my car has a problem.

White man had conquered most of Europe, western Europe was spawning (need to use that word) technologies and making the world a better place (for us humans).

And killing and torturing one another for the sake of magical sky fairies. Oh, and dark-skinned Moores were having a little renaissance of their own, making breakthroughs in science and mathematics, which is why today we whites use Arabic Numerals.

Fifty years ago the negriods where mostly living on the savanna, no technology, most die at a young age. A few exceptions such as the areas controlled by Whites, which turned into civilized societies.

After the whites slowed down on performing attrocities for the sake of shiny rocks.

White man went out in space and landed on the moon.

Thanks in part to the knowledge of the Arabs and their invention of the decimal point, and the Asians for providing the first forms of gunpowder and rocketry. Oh, and I imagine there were some blacks who contributed more directly, if they managed to overcome artificial obstacles planted by segregation.

A new disease, HIV, had taken over most of the continent, because of lack of education, common sense and general savage behaviour the disease was spreading like wildfire through rapes, unprotected sex and blood transplants and various other ways.

And would be spreading even faster today without any form of treatment if it were not for the Enlightenment values you've previously rejected being applied to the field of medicine.

White man had created the most advanced nation the world has ever seen, United States of America. White man where working night and day to try to find the cure for AIDS and other diseases, already abolishing alot of them, such as tuberculosis and others.

All thanks to the Enlightenment value known as the scientific method, and not newage (rhymes with sewage) anecdotalism. From the looks of things, it's not going to last, with the crystal wavers, alties, psychics, and religious fanatics spitting on the foundation of that prosperity and embracing anti-intellectualism.

Why does the facts not get through?/In that scull of yours?

Aside from mentioning there were some African empires, a lot of that is indeed true. It's your genetic explanation that's the problem. It contradicts everything civilization is founded on, and no, I don't mean stuff like democratic values or the Constitution: I mean the science that separates me from being just another religious fanatic. For me to accept your genetic explanation, I would have to stop believing in evolution. I would have to stop believing in the value of a good education. I would have to stop believing everything all those white scientists you praise say about how to repeat their success.

Those premises are pretty much true, but your conclusion about a magical, unspecified, undefineable, undetectable gene is the problem. Even if I didn't have any alternative explanations, I wouldn't see any reason to accept such a hypothesis without a LOT more footwork on your part.

What constitutes facts is a hard one, especially looking at the logic followed by the Bronze Dog himself, he has so far shown that if he does not like/accept it, it is generally not True, making by default, anything Dog likes, true and factual.

You're reading from a newage crystal-waver's diatribe, aren't you? The problems I'm talking about are fundamental to the structure of your argument, not the conclusion. I want to believe in psychic powers, but even I won't give them the inches you're asking for. I'm not saying you believe in psychic powers. I'm saying you ask for the same special exceptions to the rules of logic and science I'm unwilling to give anyone, even people I wish were right.

This brings a bit of a problem to the real world and people like me, as he decided not to 'like' anything I say, and therefore it is not true. I need to find entries in Wikipedia to be able to 'confirm' any fact, it seems, I wonder what he think about CreationWiki???

Gabe, you're really desperate if you're still trying to milk that Wikipedia straw man. Wikipedia is irrelevant to this conversation, since that one Wikipedia link I used wasn't even used to make an important point against you. I'm using simple logic to point out your fallacies. Logic that predates the printing press as well as Wikipedia.

First of all, I travelled and experienced alot. Far more then you, I suspect, that is not a insult, and certainly not a way of saying that my opinions is somehow better then yours, I just wanted to make you understand that I seen and done alot in this WORLD of ours, not World of Warcraft, not in a TV sitcom, but the Real World, out there, and however you want to dismiss any experience and knowledge I gained, As a minimum we are equally as functional, mentally, atleast on my side (I dont know if you have some mental disorder but presume not), there must be a limit, must it not?

You still don't understand a thing about me, or what I'm saying. Making fun of Wikipedia or WoW doesn't make your conclusions valid. They are invalid for the same reason penis enlargment pill testimonials are invalid. If someone wants to convince me penis enlargement pills work, they should use a ruler before and after on a randomly selected group of men and include a placebo control group. Once you understand why I don't trust TV ads that promise miracle cures (even from people who can be verified not to be actors or paid for testimonials), you'll understand why I don't trust your conclusions based on your anecdotes and noisy historical data.

Instead of addressing that sort of thing, I predict you'll just bring up Wikipedia and WoW again, and beat the stuffing out of them as if they had anything to do with me or the conversation. I suppose next, you're going to ridicule me for reading books, as if that automatically equates to me believing everything in the fiction section. Don't bother mentioning Wikipedia or WoW again. I'm advising you to avoid that for the sake of generosity: It makes you look like some stupid jock stereotype from "Revenge of the Nerds" who would rather beat up some kid with glasses on random compulsion, rather than have a meaningful conversation about science.

'Science' is based on people, people just like me, alot of them do not see as much as I see and certainly not as intelligent as me, so they must generally, in a minimum, in your own standard, be equal to me, correct? And therefore, what is the big deal trying to give authority to 'Science' and not 'Gabe and others' if we follow the same procedure?

What sets science apart from pseudoscience is that we have to ask each other AND ourselves questions to make sure we're not deceiving ourselves. Why are you asking for a special exemption from that process? Why is it, that when we bring up an alternative hypothesis that explains the same facts more parsimoniously (using forces we already know and agree exist), you randomly start beating the stuffing out of a straw man called "That WoW-playing nerd on that children's cartoon show who bookmarked Wikipedia"?

It's like you have a programmed reflex to mindlessly ridicule certain media instead of actually thinking about what we over here, not over there, are saying. You're like a spambot who locked onto one key word early on and shows up everyday to advertise something completely irrelevant at hand. It's like Boney on that thread about the nuts who believe in The Secret: I mention D&D once, and suddenly the science of quantum mechanics and his logical fallacies don't matter: It's "beat up the geek" time.

In the science world today there is alot of politcally correctness, you are not allowed to state certain facts and not even try to step into the realm of what is not allowed.

That's pretty much what all cranks say about, well, everything. It's usually an excuse for them to be lazy and refuse to talk about their data, even on forums. It's false bravado combined with sour grapes.

Racial matters is just like that, you see no research in how Whites are superior to negriods, Why is that?

You can't research an idea if the question is gibberish. And they have done a lot of research on humans in general. Even if you manage to describe what the hell you're asking about, I don't see the purpose in doing it from a pragmatic point of view: Treat everyone equally, and the talented will naturally excel. That's true, regardless of whether the difference is on the individual level or on some population genetic level.

I would be curious on strictly an academic level, but you can't talk about it: All I ever get out of you is some gibberish about a fictional WoW player who spends too much time on Wikipedia.

About the only thing I've done with Wikipedia in earnest lately was look up a few celebrity names to help my mother with a crossword puzzle while I was visiting this weekend. I'm terrible with celebrity trivia.

And yet you see people claiming it is not so, that EVERYONE IS EQUAL, yet no evidence is produced.

Fallacy: Shifting the burden of proof. I suggest you learn something about the "null hypothesis": Equality means "there is no difference." Science isn't in the business of proving the nonexistence of stuff. That's like a psychic asking us to prove there is no such thing as psychic power. Why waste time and resources exploring the entire universe from start to finish when they can expedite the process by proving the existence of one psychic over the course of an afternoon.

In statistics, one of the very first things you have to do with a dataset is prove that the groups are NOT equal. This is basic philosophy of science.

And even then, it's a straw man: I don't believe everyone is equal. Some people are better at math. Some people are quicker on their feet. I just see very little reason to use race to change how I'd treat someone in an educational context.

Politically correct has become a huge hindrence in knowledge, we are not allowed to study the difference between niggers and spics, spics and whites and whites and niggers, because it does not suit.

How exactly can they stop you? Okay, let's say they don't publish you. You can shout from the mountaintops the logical fallacies the peer reviewers employed in the letters. You can self-publish and dare someone to contest your results.

What I'm seeing here is, "I know with absolute god-like certainty how you'll respond, so I won't even bother trying to make my case."

Well, we've been busy asking you to try, and all we get are anti-science diatribes that would be quite welcome on the tongues of crystal-waving hippies who are racist in the opposite direction: They ask for watered-down Hollywood "Eastern" mysticism to be exempt from "Western" "white" science.

All you're doing, Gabe, is posting excuses for your exemption from basic scientific rigor and even basic chat room critical thinking.

Anyone wanting to go into this field would be condemed, no grants and most likely lose their jobs, thats not a overly 'paranoid(ic)' statement, really.

Let's say you're right, and these people would lose their jobs. How is that going to change the evidence they present? How is that going to prevent them from posting it online for the world to see and analyze in detail? Science takes a lot of courage, even if you're just trying to get data on slime mold published. Peer review can be vicious, even for topics we would consider trivial. If someone can rigorously collect the data and display sound logic, their critics will be demonstrably unarmed.

Instead of any of these people bravely stepping forward just to try, they just repeat this cliched mantra borrowed from B-movie science fiction.

Just like I do every time a parapsychologist comes forward to say that they've got proof, I call their bluff. The studies they present are always underwhelming and easily explained by bad statistics, a magician's sleight of hand, or a mentalist's stage act. So far, Gabe, you're no different in that regard: Every fact you bring up can be explained by countless other forces.

That is an issue, people like you, and not to mention your rather pathetic followers, who truly are a shining example of close-minded nimrods, they are truly people you should distance yourserlf from if you want to seem intellectual and spread information.

What, I should distance myself from people who believe in the value of peer review and the scientific method? Should I try getting in bed with the cranks and weirdoes who say all the pseudo-rebellious nonsense you do?

Conspiracy nuts really are a force for the status quo. No wonder I fear for the United States' scientific future.

You shouldn't need to be ashamed because you know your place in society.

An ideal society gives everyone an equality of opportunity. Those who have the drive and the talent, regardless of some smug individual's evaluation of their background, are the ones who will grasp those opportunities and succeed.

Many smug, closed-minded individuals told scientists and other great thinkers their place in society was at the heels of those in power, or bound to false laws of nature. Science and civilization are inmical to those preconceptions.

I close with Qualia Soup's most excellent video on what open-mindedness really means: