You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] ARsandOutdoors 0 points 77 points (+77|-0) ago 

[–] Kannibal 1 points 26 points (+27|-1) ago  (edited ago)

thing is, things like the "African Notebook" Quote is hard to debunk because the original edition is hard to find.

However a number of people have gone to their actual college library, looked up the first edition, and found the quote is simply not there.

You can search for snippets from the 1936 edition here and find a number of passages with the word "race" in it but nothing with the phrase "sub--race". For that matter, neither does the word "fraternize" exist in the book

the quoted passage was never censored out, it was never there. it is a made up quote.

This puts the whole collection of material into the doubt,

Sort of like the folks who decided to publish the Kenyan birth certificate of Barack Obama. Kenyan was not a country when Obama was born, and so his birth certificate would have be British Colonial. The Kenyan certificate was faked.

So this means that all of the data has to be inspected and verified.

Or we can do like Judge Judy does, and conclude that if you present false evidence in making your case, that the whole case is contaminated.

When making a case like this, you have to use the best evidence.

It is not enough to have a huge pile if it is a huge pile of shit, even if it is very pretty shit.

Thing is, if you want to prove that the cause of problems in inherent in race, you have to prove it cannot possibly be anything else.

This sucks I know.

for a broader view of this, see the essay "cargo cult science"

For example, there have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on—with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before.

The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and, still the rats could tell.

He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell.

Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A‑Number‑l experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat‑running experiments sensible, because it uncovers the clues that the rat is really using—not what you think it’s using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat‑running.

I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The subsequent experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn’t discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of Cargo Cult Science.

[–] TheAmerican 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

He already knows what he wants the data to tell him, so he will seek out information that supports that.

[–] ARsandOutdoors 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Thank you for such a thorough reply

[–] gullwingx [S] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Besides 3 of those images, everything includes the source of the information.

But you do make very good points. Everyone should take that into account when forming an argument. You say one false thing, the rest of what you say becomes moot.

[–] Itsdone63 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

I think you've made a very valid point there friend.

[–] N3DM 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Damn, son!

[–] gullwingx [S] 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

That's it!

Thanks a lot my man.

[–] ARsandOutdoors 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Lol I have a Rather large redpill folder

[–] BearDolphin1488 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I'm going to use these graphs in a paper. Thanks

[–] ARsandOutdoors 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I got a grip on IQ and race if u want. I’ll have to post later tonight tho