ohsnap

bayesian reasoning is a fairly accepted form of epistemology these days, and it is a form of knowledge long prominent in non-western cultures. What is wrong with physcists/philosophers thinking about how this can be applied in science?

Seems a better critically minded approach is to consider their arguments - rather than brush them off by calling them desperate

Wouldn't it be better to explain why you think that it is the correct form of free speech rather than disparage others? You say you hate being 'lectured by Americans' but you don't seem much better...

Long term I can see web components/polymer shims being preferred over React, but not till the major browsers catch up. Like the parent says, Facebook is deeply invested in making React work and it really shows. Angular/Polymer always seems more r&d/experimental to me, which is great but not for people who want to do production work.

There has been a lot of understanding of their rationale. And many have concluded it is due to glorification of the killers before them.

I think you misinterpret collective rationality, as Weirich never try's explain a historical progression for western morality.

And as mentioned there have been other cultures with strong rational traditions that have come to far different moral conclusions than today - e.g. soviet/communism, Islamic societies,etc.. Pure reason thought doesn't go one direction, it can take you to very different and uncomfortable places.

Actually his/her comment was anecdotal, in that no one can verify. My comment is a noting a shared cultural understanding that everyone confirm or reject. (specifically: the likelihood of people saying your classmates are genetically inferior is taboo) It's not anecdotal.

Note that sociology is deeply rooted in empirical evidence statistics as well. I think we can agree that that it is a soft science. Hard science requires no subjectivity, no hidden variables, and re-creatable experiments. Soft sciences have a place, but not in telling us what is true.

Until you can take a genome and build computational models of intelligence it is foolish to be so confident to draw any conclusions in IQ research.

I really don't think there is any hard science to say 60-80% is heritable. It's all soft science as people can disagree and agree on that all they want. Until someone can build a computational model of brain function related to the genome (inc. RNA) it is an open question.

I can understand that position, but dealing with inquiries outside the hard sciences gets complicated Keeping some things taboo is the better path especially with something like evolutionary biology which is no where near a hard science.

when someone uses a personal experience to bolster an argument, it is appropriate for someone to question the validity of how likely it is. It's not an ad hominem or a personal attack.

was in 1994. I wouldn't call it common. Though occasionally Andrew Sullivan would comment in this area.

Regardless, I think the parent post was just exaggerating some hypothetical conversation in class to improve his/her argument. The probably of students arguing in class that some of their classmates are genetically inferior is highly unlikely. And if they did the probability of it not causing a massive twitter shit storm is close to 0.

Not sure what world you live in but I have never heard students argue in favor of African Americans having heritable lower intelligence. Such a discussion would instantly be shamed and publicized. Pretty sure your making this up.

Or say a foreigner is introduced to Jiu Jitsu. Then that said foreigner appropriates it and develops a new system called Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. They then issue belts based on their new interpretation of skill level. Perhaps a few Japanese might have a problem with that and think your a 'poser' - but you would probably ignore them and just consider them a bigot.