> No, extrapolating outside of study sample is the entire point of doing science. Of what use science would be if we could not do that? Imagine, “no, you can’t say that this vaccine is effective, at best you can say that it was effective in the sample of subjects being included in that study
It's not about not extrapolating to individual subjects outside of the test group, it's about not extrapolating to categories which aren't represented. That's why we don't conclude a vaccine is effective on all mammals after a trial on mouses! We experiment on humans, and we even try to get as much diversity as we can (age, gender, preexisting conditions etc.) so the result can be generalized to the entire population.
> I observe a goalpost being shifted, from “genetic factors alone” to them being decisive. I do not accept that. Please, tell me, where they, or anyone else claims that genetic factors alone determine outcomes.
The argument made in The Bell Curve is that genetics is the single most important factor. I wrote “alone” not because there is not other factors, but because according to the authors there is no other factors as important.
> Relationship between g and genetics is an empirical, not purely ideological issue. Hernstein has been saying that g is mostly determined by genes precisely because this is the current state of our scientific knowledge, and has been for decades.
It's not. At least not according to the usual definition of “scientific knowledge” which imply some degree of consensus: this research field is strongly divided on that question, with a clear ideological split. BTW, even the mere existence of g is questioned.
It's not about not extrapolating to individual subjects outside of the test group, it's about not extrapolating to categories which aren't represented. That's why we don't conclude a vaccine is effective on all mammals after a trial on mouses! We experiment on humans, and we even try to get as much diversity as we can (age, gender, preexisting conditions etc.) so the result can be generalized to the entire population.
> I observe a goalpost being shifted, from “genetic factors alone” to them being decisive. I do not accept that. Please, tell me, where they, or anyone else claims that genetic factors alone determine outcomes.
The argument made in The Bell Curve is that genetics is the single most important factor. I wrote “alone” not because there is not other factors, but because according to the authors there is no other factors as important.
> Relationship between g and genetics is an empirical, not purely ideological issue. Hernstein has been saying that g is mostly determined by genes precisely because this is the current state of our scientific knowledge, and has been for decades.
It's not. At least not according to the usual definition of “scientific knowledge” which imply some degree of consensus: this research field is strongly divided on that question, with a clear ideological split. BTW, even the mere existence of g is questioned.