Is Newtons theory of gravity true or false? It’s neither. For some problems the theory provides a good model that allows us to make good predictions about the world around us. For other problems the theory produces bad predictions.
The same is true for nearly every scientific model. There are problems where it’s useful to use the model. There are problems where it isn’t.
There are also factual statements in science. Claiming that true and false are the only possible adjectives to describe them is also highly problematic. Instead of true and false, likely and unlikely are much better words. In hard science most scientific conclusions come with p values. The author doesn’t try to declare them true or false but declares them to be very likely.
It’s also interesting that the person who made this claim isn’t working in the hard sciences. He seems to be a evolutionary psychologist based in the London School of Economics. In the Wikipedia article that desribes him he’s quoted as suggesting that the US should have retaliated 9/11 with nuclear bombs. That a non-scientific racist position. He published some material that’s widely considered as racist in Psychology Today. I don’t see why “racist” is no valid word to describe his conclusions.
On the other hand, Kanazawa seems really good at saying controversial things that get attention… which suggests evidence for his views will overspread relative to those of his detractors. So it may make sense to hold people who say controversial stuff to high epistemological standards, or perhaps to scrutinize memes that seem unusually virulent especially carefully.
In the Wikipedia article that desribes him he’s quoted as suggesting that the US should have retaliated 9/11 with nuclear bombs. That a non-scientific racist position.
Huh, what definition of “racist” are you using here? Would you describe von Neumann’s proposal for a pre-emtive nuclear strike on the USSR as “racist”?
He published some material that’s widely considered as racist in Psychology Today. I don’t see why “racist” is no valid word to describe his conclusions.
I’m not sure what you mean by “racist”, however is your claim supposed to be that this somehow implies that the conclusion is false/less likely? You may want to practice repeating the Litany of Tarski.
Huh, what definition of “racist” are you using here?
It’s basically about putting a low value on the life on non-white civilians.
In addition “I would do to foreigners, what Ann Coulter would do to them”, is also a pretty straight way to signal racism.
I’m not sure what you mean by “racist”, however is your claim supposed to be that this somehow implies that the conclusion is false/less likely?
I haven’t argued that fact. I’m advocating for having a broad number of words which multidimensional meaning.
I see no reason to treat someone who makes wrong claims about race and who’s personal beliefs cluster with racist beliefs in his nonscientific statements the same way as someone who just makes wrong statements about the boiling point of some new synthetic chemical.
It’s basically about putting a low value on the life on non-white civilians.
So would you call the bombings of civilians during WWII “racist”?
I haven’t argued that fact. I’m advocating for having a broad number of words which multidimensional meaning.
So you would agree that there are some statements that are both “racist” and true.
I see no reason to treat someone who makes wrong claims about race
What do you mean by “wrong”? If you mean “wrong” in the sense of “false”, you’ve yet to present any evidence that any of Satoshi Kanazawa’s claims are wrong.
It’s basically about putting a low value on the life on non-white civilians.
So would you call the bombings of civilians during WWII “racist”?
I haven’t argued that fact. I’m advocating for having a broad number of words which multidimensional meaning.
So you would agree that there are some statements that are both “racist” and true.
I see no reason to treat someone who makes wrong claims about race
What do you mean by “wrong”, if you mean “wrong” in the sense of “false”, you’ve yet to present any evidence that any of Satoshi Kanazawa’s claims are wrong.
It’s basically about putting a low value on the life on non-white civilians.
So would you call the bombings of civilians during WWII “racist”?
I haven’t argued that fact. I’m advocating for having a broad number of words which multidimensional meaning.
So you would agree that there are some statements that are both “racist” and true.
I see no reason to treat someone who makes wrong claims about race
What do you mean by “wrong”, if you mean “wrong” in the sense of “false”, you’ve yet to present any evidence that any of Satoshi Kanazawa’s claims are wrong.
Is Newtons theory of gravity true or false? It’s neither. For some problems the theory provides a good model that allows us to make good predictions about the world around us. For other problems the theory produces bad predictions.
The same is true for nearly every scientific model. There are problems where it’s useful to use the model. There are problems where it isn’t.
There are also factual statements in science. Claiming that true and false are the only possible adjectives to describe them is also highly problematic. Instead of true and false, likely and unlikely are much better words. In hard science most scientific conclusions come with p values. The author doesn’t try to declare them true or false but declares them to be very likely.
It’s also interesting that the person who made this claim isn’t working in the hard sciences. He seems to be a evolutionary psychologist based in the London School of Economics. In the Wikipedia article that desribes him he’s quoted as suggesting that the US should have retaliated 9/11 with nuclear bombs. That a non-scientific racist position. He published some material that’s widely considered as racist in Psychology Today. I don’t see why “racist” is no valid word to describe his conclusions.
What happens if you apply the same epistomological standards to claims that someone is racist that you apply to claims from science?
On the other hand, Kanazawa seems really good at saying controversial things that get attention… which suggests evidence for his views will overspread relative to those of his detractors. So it may make sense to hold people who say controversial stuff to high epistemological standards, or perhaps to scrutinize memes that seem unusually virulent especially carefully.
Huh, what definition of “racist” are you using here? Would you describe von Neumann’s proposal for a pre-emtive nuclear strike on the USSR as “racist”?
I’m not sure what you mean by “racist”, however is your claim supposed to be that this somehow implies that the conclusion is false/less likely? You may want to practice repeating the Litany of Tarski.
It’s basically about putting a low value on the life on non-white civilians. In addition “I would do to foreigners, what Ann Coulter would do to them”, is also a pretty straight way to signal racism.
I haven’t argued that fact. I’m advocating for having a broad number of words which multidimensional meaning.
I see no reason to treat someone who makes wrong claims about race and who’s personal beliefs cluster with racist beliefs in his nonscientific statements the same way as someone who just makes wrong statements about the boiling point of some new synthetic chemical.
Rather than using the ambiguous word “racist”, one could say specifically that Kanazawa is an advocate of genocide.
As I said above, did the bombings of civilians during WWII constitute “genocide”?
So would you call the bombings of civilians during WWII “racist”?
So you would agree that there are some statements that are both “racist” and true.
What do you mean by “wrong”? If you mean “wrong” in the sense of “false”, you’ve yet to present any evidence that any of Satoshi Kanazawa’s claims are wrong.
So would you call the bombings of civilians during WWII “racist”?
So you would agree that there are some statements that are both “racist” and true.
What do you mean by “wrong”, if you mean “wrong” in the sense of “false”, you’ve yet to present any evidence that any of Satoshi Kanazawa’s claims are wrong.
So would you call the bombings of civilians during WWII “racist”?
So you would agree that there are some statements that are both “racist” and true.
What do you mean by “wrong”, if you mean “wrong” in the sense of “false”, you’ve yet to present any evidence that any of Satoshi Kanazawa’s claims are wrong.