"Trust the Experts"

[fireofice]

One criticism of the denial position is that the consensus of historians is against revisionists. Since the experts are trained in the relevant fields, why should we believe people who are trained in this field rather than some nobody? Of course, the arguments should just stand and fall based on the actual evidence and the logical conclusions derived from them. However, many people won't bother to listen if they don't think "the experts" agree. The problem with this is that the reliability of experts is way overstated. Here is some information demonstrating this:


On Trusting Academic Experts by Sean Last
https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2020 ... c-experts/

On Trusting Academic Experts (Why You Shouldn't) by Sean Last
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ullu_yTzuY

The Expertise of Experts by Ryan Faulk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUFKJjDebbI

The Authoritarian View of Knowledge - Peer Review by Ryan Faulk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fliGc1XraRc

PEER REVIEW by Ryan Faulk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrk2Sj1acQE

Peer Review, Replication and Publication Bias by Ryan Faulk
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/in ... tion-bias/

Expert Speech by Ryan Faulk
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/in ... rt-speech/

Especially important to note here is that many academic experts are incompetent in basic statistical literacy. The argument from the advancement of science doesn't work because the advances of science are made by a small group of scientists from within their field, and so we can't just assume something is true just because the majority says it. Likewise, we can't just apply a hard science to something like history, because history is just about coming to conclusions on what probably happened in the past. In history, you can't do experiments to test a prediction, because it already happened and it's done. There are also countless examples of experts that were in the minority being dogpiled from the rest of the scientific community before they are accepted.

Richard Carrier gives an example:

Imperial Roman Economics as an Example of an Overthrown Consensus by Richard Carrier
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18035

This article by Richard Carrier I think gives a useful guide on evaluating arguments from consensus:

On Evaluating Arguments from Consensus by Richard Carrier
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553

On top of all this there are serious problems in the field of history that make their conclusions not as reliable, namely logic.

Historians' Fallacies : Toward a Logic of Historical Thought by David Hackett Fischer
https://www.amazon.com/Historians-Falla ... 061315451/

Richard Carrier as well as other historians are starting to agree with this.

History as a Science by Richard Carrier
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11311

Carrier thinks he's found the solution. Whether he's succeeded I'll leave for others to judge.

Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus by Richard Carrier
https://www.amazon.com/Proving-History- ... 616145595/

So history as a field has some major problems. However, when it comes specifically to the holocaust, that problem is magnified with the social taboo to affirm the holocaust story at the very least in some countries, and outright making it illegal in other countries. And the mere fact that it is illegal in some countries is going to have an effect on historians even where it is legal. As historians want to be able to go to other countries where it might be illegal to converse with other historians. And on top of that, people who study the holocaust are going to be legally prohibited from going to the relevant geographic locations of where original research needs to be done. The only way the revisionist researcher Mattogno can do much of his work is to rely on academics who feed him the relevant primary sources who stay quiet.

If you take into consideration the fact that historians already concede almost everything revisionists say as to the evidence for the holocaust, while still maintaining that the holocaust happened, it should make you wonder why that is.

Is the Holocaust Well Documented? by Paul Grubach
https://codoh.com/library/document/is-t ... mented/en/

Of course, they don't concede the evidence against the holocaust, like the Prussian Blue and cremation rates, as conceding that while maintaining the holocaust narrative would just make them look looney.

There are taboos in other areas of academia that make it hard for researchers to follow the truth. Here is one example:

An Existential Threat to Doing Good Science by Luana Maroja
https://www.commonsense.news/p/an-exist ... doing-good

And this is what it's like for someone in the hard sciences. Now just imagine the pressure turned up within a field that already has questionable methods.

[Hektor]

One criticism of the denial position is that the consensus of historians is against revisionists. Since the experts are trained in the relevant fields, why should we believe people who are trained in this field rather than some nobody? Of course, the arguments should just stand and fall based on the actual evidence and the logical conclusions derived from them. However, many people won't bother to listen if they don't think "the experts" agree. The problem with this is that the reliability of experts is way overstated. Here is some information demonstrating this:
....

That attempt to refute the revisionist position is so ridiculous, I was puzzled, when I read/heard it for the first time. It's something that I'd expect a primary school kid to tell me "But our teacher said..."..... I had to hear it from somebody with a doctors degree (in history)... It went like "No serious historian denies the Holocaust"...
It's two informal fallacies at once:
1. Appeal to authority.
2. Ad populum (appeal to consensus or majorities).

Usually any student should learn in Logic 101 not to use that kind of pseudo-arguments. But I still had to learn that nowadays it's still quite common in academia. Especially, when dealing with controversial subjects like 'Holocaust', 'Virology', 'Evolution', 'climate change'... and the like.

The problem is that while it is not a valid logical argument to point to an authority figure or majority/consensus most people are prone to fall for it and be manipulated in favor of a position, when this is done. People simply long for authority and social approval.... And are also trained to do so. But it is NO WAY to prove something in compliance with requirements of the scientific method.


The 'trust the experts' hogwash is actually a bit of a concealment as well. Actually, they want to say 'have faith in academic authority'... But that would remind too many people of 'blind faith in religion' or 'the priesthood'. If people noticed that, you'd raise suspicion with both religious people and those that try to appear as if they aren't. Their answers would be different of course. The one would say "This isn't my religion", while the others will say "I don't like religion". So rather conceal that you demand faith based on assumed authority and you may let more people fall for it.


Make sure that you are dealing with people who have some basic understanding of logic and what the scientific method is. Be warned... Even people with college degrees are mostly ignorant about this. In fact they may be less capable to apply logic than the uneducated though (although they may use other methods of knowing than logic... common sense and intuition also play a role). The worst are the average high-school and college dimwits... Who think they are somehow smart, since they managed to memorize what their teachers expected from them. Confront them whether they have some knowledge about Logic first. Throw some fallacies they commit to their had. It's only after you've done that that there is some potential of changing their mind.... That is if you are not dealing with NPCs or bots... which can be a quite scary experience.

[borjastick]

Usually any student should learn in Logic 101 not to use that kind of pseudo-arguments. But I still had to learn that nowadays it's still quite common in academia. Especially, when dealing with controversial subjects like 'Holocaust', 'Virology', 'Evolution', 'climate change'... and the like.

The problem is that while it is not a valid logical argument to point to an authority figure or majority/consensus most people are prone to fall for it and be manipulated in favor of a position, when this is done. People simply long for authority and social approval.... And are also trained to do so. But it is NO WAY to prove something in compliance with requirements of the scientific method.

Good point but it goes further. What they are also saying to the unwashed public is 'trust us, don't you think about the matter because we have told you the truth'. That allows dummies who never question anything to never question anything! Those who do question things, and more people are doing so these days after Covid and Climate change lies, are finding that the holocaust is well worth questioning along with of course Covid and climate change lies. The recent argument that we should trust the experts is as hollow as it gets. Most people now realise that when someone is on the news introduced as an 'activist' or 'expert' on any subject the best thing to do is go and make a cup of tea because these so called experts often just lie talk total bollocks. Just to go sideways for a moment those of you who have Netflix should really take a look at Ancient Apocalypse which is not only really very interesting in its own right but made me think again that the orthodoxy of history backed by laws etc is largely pedaling lies and control matter. He the presenter and his theories have been dismissed by the 'experts' as crap because they simply don't like the fact that he has challenged the story and linked a whole bunch of ancient historical events and they never saw it that way.

[hermod]

There used to be a time when astrologers were regarded as highly-praised reliable advisers. But their prestige didn't affect the fraudulent nature of their 'predictions.' It only affected the trust of most people in their 'predictions.' A shaman with followers and prestige is still a shaman, i.e. a charlatan feeding on the gullibility of his followers.

[Archie]

I actually prefer to flip the script on the credentialism point and argue that even on credentialist grounds you can make a good case for revisionism. If you say that expertise doesn't matter, then you're granting a premise unnecessarily and implying that revisionists lack credibility. The facts are 1) the Holocaust did not get much academic prestige until around the 1980s, 2) revisionists by and large have been intelligent and well-credentialed (and in relevant domains besides history), there have been significant numbers of them, and the output produced has been voluminous ( and the mainstream has even admitted that a fair bit of it is correct). By itself this does not mean revisionists are right, but I think it makes it very hard to dismiss out of hand the way Holocaust promoters do.

I gave some thoughts about this in the thread below:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13612

[Revision]

Covid and Climate change lies

Why do they have to be lies? Do you seriously think all the governments in the world are in on some grand intentional covid lie? You are destroying our credibility.

[borjastick]

Covid and Climate change lies

Why do they have to be lies? Do you seriously think all the governments in the world are in on some grand intentional covid lie? You are destroying our credibility.

You've missed my point. Yes most governments were in on some great control exercise about Covid once they knew who was a likely victim of it, they continued with the lock down process etc.

However my point was that when experts say they know this that and the other we are supposed to follow their instructions. In the case of the holocaust we are told by those 'experts' that it definitely happened, is the most documented event in human history, that deniers are nasty Nazi types who hate jews etc, and that any investigation into it must be stopped or worse, made illegal, because the poor jews have suffered enough.

[Hektor]

Covid and Climate change lies

Why do they have to be lies? Do you seriously think all the governments in the world are in on some grand intentional covid lie? You are destroying our credibility.

It doesn't have to be intentional. In fact 'intentions' above their own life-styles would be give present political elites far too much credit.

What you need is a few people pushing agendas... politicians, journalists, business people, civil society functionaries will quickly jump on the train and make noises fitting the agendas.


SARSCOV2 has never been proven to even exist as a disease causing entity and there is lots of evidence that it is a swindle. Same for the thesis that "CO2 causes global warming". For COVID you could actually do experiments that could give a clearer picture, but they refuse to this. Governments have refused to give evidence for the virus in court. That's a tacit admission of having no evidence.

That CO2 causes climate change CAN NOT be proven scientifically anyway. But there is counter indication for this... Meaning there are plenty of other factors that have influence on climate and temperature measurements. There is also plenty of reasons for academics to support either "COVID" or "CO2 causes Climate Change". There isn't really incentives to contradict that notion... Unless you really are in for it for the truth of course. But most academics want career opportunities and not forgo them. So rather walk with the crowd and support notions that will enhance the status of your field and create more career opportunities for your ilk. Both unproven claims do exactly that.

[Lamprecht]

I made a thread about this a long time ago:

Debating: Responding to arguments claiming there are no "reliable/respected sources" denying the holocaust?
viewtopic.php?t=12190

The simple answer, beyond the obvious appeal-to-popularity fallacy, is that they are talking about a "consensus of historians" that is artificial. In the most relevant countries: Germany, Austria, Poland, etc - the so-called "Holocaust" is illegal to question.

[Lamprecht]

This isn't really related to the "Holocaust" but it does have a lot to do with "Expert opinion" - Maybe we could talk over PM about it?

Covid and Climate change lies

Why do they have to be lies? Do you seriously think all the governments in the world are in on some grand intentional covid lie? You are destroying our credibility.

Regarding COVID-19, the excess deaths from the so-called "Pandemic" do not really fit in well with the understood risk factors of the virus. The estimated death rate for the SARS-CoV-2 virus is heavily weighed against the elderly. The risk for young, healthy people is extremely low - this is confirmed by all of the data and the pattern shows up even in data with inflated death rate estimates. However, the "excess deaths" from the period of the "pandemic" in the USA do not fit any pattern expected for a viral pandemic. In fact, if nobody was told that there was a pandemic of a virus that mostly targeted the elderly, such a conclusion couldn't be reached from viewing the data. There is a very weak association with age and excess deaths. There is a strong association (very strong correlation; r=0.86) for poverty and the excess deaths during the alleged pandemic; nothing else even comes close. But why?
It's likely that a large number of deaths from bacterial infection were falsely labelled as "Covid deaths" - as were deaths from many other causes in the USA. This also resulted in inappropriate treatment, as did various other policy decisions.
If there was no "pandemic" declaration and the 2019-20 winter was treated as nothing more than a regular flu season, with people encouraged to supplement with common remedies such vitamin D and zinc, it's unlikely the USA have had excess deaths.



What happened was that the most at risk groups - poor, obese, disabled, etc - were locked up and prevented from receiving proper health care and their immune systems suffered. Many upper respiratory bacterial infections were incorrectly diagnosed. In a normal year there are more antibiotic prescriptions in the USA than there are people. Antibiotic prescriptions dropped considerably during the "pandemic" when you'd expect bacterial infections to increase, even if you believe everything the media claims about the virus. Bacterial pneumonia is known to be extremely common after a viral upper respiratory infection. Markers of bacterial infection were associated with severity of COVID-19 diagnosis. New research has found the "Spanish flu" epidemic was actually driven by bacterial infection.

Suggested reading:
Nature of the COVID-era public health disaster in the USA, from all-cause mortality and socio-geo-economic and climatic data https://denisrancourt.ca/uploads_entrie ... ---12d.pdf

Evaluating the Effect of Lockdowns On All-Cause Mortality During the COVID Era: Lockdowns Did Not Save Lives https://denisrancourt.ca/uploads_entrie ... 0Lives.pdf

COVID-Period Mass Vaccination Campaign and Public Health Disaster in the USA https://denisrancourt.ca/uploads_entrie ... ---19m.pdf

A personal anecdote: I'm sure I was exposed to SARS-CoV-2 at some point, but I never actually got sick from it. But during the "pandemic" I got sick from upper respiratory bacterial infection three times. Only once did I go to a doctor for antibiotics (it was 1 month after the first time I got sick, which is why) but I told the doctor I thought I had strep throat; he confirmed it in seconds. Someone else in my shoes might have thought it was a viral infection, had a positive test test result, and not received proper treatment. I've never took a SARS-CoV-2 test. Also, I am not normally predisposed to bacterial/strep infections and prior to that I hadn't had one in at least 10 years. I'm usually the type to get a cold or the flu.

The idea that "all the governments in the world" are necessarily in on something is also incorrect; it's not even apparent that they all agree on any of these subjects. Generally, when people "Deny COVID-19" they are not suggesting there is no coronavirus around. This is a common misconception, possibly a result of a coordinated disinformation campaign or the mainstream-popularity of the topic causing low-information people to readily share their beliefs.

Coronaviruses have always made up a substantial part of a normal "flu season" - from a 2019 study: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911083116



The bottom graph shows the variances in frequency for different viruses that were found to be causing "viral respiratory infections" in Glasgow (Scotland) from 2005-13. Coronaviruses are in light green (CoV) and ranged from 7-15% depending on the year. Given the dates, none of these Coronaviruses were SARS-CoV-2.
The top graph exposes the reality of what is known as "flu season" - it's seasonal because people are more likely to get sick from a virus during the colder months of the year. What is called "flu season" correlates heavily with vitamin D levels (produced by skin exposure to the sun).



Some people do deny viruses, but they're a small minority. The position I've seen most often is that the "pandemic" was entirely artificial and the SARS-CoV-2 virus was not especially dangerous. A recent paper (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 22282525v3) estimated that 94% of Americans have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2. We knew very early on that most people don't even get sick from it. Further, the stresses of the "pandemic" (government policy, media scaremongering) demonstrably had a massive, deleterious impact on health and immune function.

The government of Tanzania for example doesn't consider the virus a threat, and there was not a massive excess death toll despite the country's poverty. USA had a massive excess death toll despite 24/7 obsession over it. The US government also admits to faking the death statistics.

I'm not sure where you live but if you don't thing the mass media (particularly in the USA) lied constantly about the virus and "pandemic" I can prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. PM me.

As for "Climate change" I have never seen any sort of polling of world-wide scientists on their positions regarding the involvement of humans. What do the scientists in Russia or China for example think about "man made climate change" exactly?

CO2 absorbs into water (here: the ocean) but is more readily released when the water is heated. You can notice yourself by observing the difference of opening a very cold carbonated beverage versus a very warm one.



CO2, which is essential for plant life and is much lower than the long-term historical average, is not even a very important greenhouse gas compared to water vapor. Very little of atmospheric CO2 is released by humans.





Those that question "man made climate change" are also accused of being "deniers" as revisionists are, accused of being paid agents of petroleum companies. It's generally career suicide. The "consensus" claim is also a lie: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1



When one position is demonized as "evil" by the media, the claim of "expert consensus" is thrown out the window. In the US, it's often falsely claimed that there is "expert consensus" that biological race isn't real, and scientists arguing that it is real are "racists" peddling an agenda. But there is no consensus. China (where the issue isn't politicized) has a consensus though, and the consensus is that the concept is unquestionably valid: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/374899

The "Holocaust" hoax is a great comparison to these two issues. All three have a basic element of truth:
- Jews were persecuted, put into camps, and many died in WWII
- The climate is changing (always has, always will)
- There is a SARS-CoV-2 virus and a small % of people exposed do get sick and die from it

But built upon these factual foundations is a house of cards. Any perceived "consensus" on these topics is artificially induced by the controlled media labelling dissent as evil and part of some horrible conspiracy. It's just more obvious for the "Holocaust" because people are literally imprisoned, which does explain why dissent for these other issues is seen as more "acceptable" with a sizable minority of experts endorsing these claims, usually at great personal loss.

[hermod]

When one position is demonized as "evil" by the media, the claim of "expert consensus" is thrown out the window. In the US, it's often falsely claimed that there is "expert consensus" that biological race isn't real, and scientists arguing that it is real are "racists" peddling an agenda. But there is no consensus. China (where the issue isn't politicized) has a consensus though, and the consensus is that the concept is unquestionably valid: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/374899

In fact, race denial aka biological egalitarianism, not racism itself (as claimed by Globalist propagandists & court scientists), is pseudoscientific and ideological. And it's most often justified by the Holohoax. A lie supporting another lie...

https://postimg.cc/23tssgF7

https://postimg.cc/4Y6jhyCW

[Otium]

Regarding COVID-19, the excess deaths from the so-called "Pandemic" do not really fit in well with the understood risk factors of the virus. The estimated death rate for the SARS-CoV-2 virus is heavily weighed against the elderly. The risk for young, healthy people is extremely low - this is confirmed by all of the data and the pattern shows up even in data with inflated death rate estimates. However, the "excess deaths" from the period of the "pandemic" in the USA do not fit any pattern expected for a viral pandemic. In fact, if nobody was told that there was a pandemic of a virus that mostly targeted the elderly, such a conclusion couldn't be reached from viewing the data.

From February to April 2020, all the people who became totalitarian supporters of the Covid narrative were saying just this very thing. That it wasn't any worse than the flu, that it only disproportionatly affected the elderly and people with preexising health conditions. It seems, two nearly three years later everyone has forgotten about this. Nobody talks about it from what I've seen, how all these people did a massive about-face when it became ideologically convenient for them. People I know personally did the same thing. This was because, at first, Covid was a threat to immigration and supposedly fermented "racism" against Asians. This was their motive in those early months to play it down.

Regarding the "climate crisis", in 2019 there was a letter, or petition, signed by over 500 scientist people involved in those matters warning there was no "climate crisis". I think there was even another letter penned with over 2000 names, though I could be misremembering. I remember hearing about this from the Heartland Institute. According to Greta, and her ilk in 2019, there was 11 years left before the end of the world; well, we've got 8 years left and if these people are wrong - which it's guaranteed they will be - then people need to remember to shove it back in their faces. But unfortinately, like with the turnabout on the Covid-19 stuff, nobody will remember enough of the stupid shit they said 3 years ago.

When one position is demonized as "evil" by the media, the claim of "expert consensus" is thrown out the window. In the US, it's often falsely claimed that there is "expert consensus" that biological race isn't real, and scientists arguing that it is real are "racists" peddling an agenda. But there is no consensus. China (where the issue isn't politicized) has a consensus though, and the consensus is that the concept is unquestionably valid: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/374899

Recently this was shown among evolutionary researchers: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513822000836

Western researchers, depending on who you asked, would agree more or less to a race realist understanding so-long as you didn't use the word "race". This has been known for a long time, and still holds true today as this new study shows.

[cold beer]

There used to be a time when astrologers were regarded as highly-praised reliable advisers. But their prestige didn't affect the fraudulent nature of their 'predictions.' It only affected the trust of most people in their 'predictions.' A shaman with followers and prestige is still a shaman, i.e. a charlatan feeding on the gullibility of his followers.

There used to be a time when parents told kids to not believe everything they hear and not believe everything they see on tv. And there was this..."I stand corrected". How often does anyone say that today?

[Hektor]

Regarding COVID-19, the excess deaths from the so-called "Pandemic" do not really fit in well with the understood risk factors of the virus. The estimated death rate for the SARS-CoV-2 virus is heavily weighed against the elderly. The risk for young, healthy people is extremely low - this is confirmed by all of the data and the pattern shows up even in data with inflated death rate estimates. However, the "excess deaths" from the period of the "pandemic" in the USA do not fit any pattern expected for a viral pandemic. In fact, if nobody was told that there was a pandemic of a virus that mostly targeted the elderly, such a conclusion couldn't be reached from viewing the data.

From February to April 2020, all the people who became totalitarian supporters of the Covid narrative were saying just this very thing. That it wasn't any worse than the flu, that it only disproportionatly affected the elderly and people with preexising health conditions. It seems, two nearly three years later everyone has forgotten about this. Nobody talks about it from what I've seen, how all these people did a massive about-face when it became ideologically convenient for them. People I know personally did the same thing. This was because, at first, Covid was a threat to immigration and supposedly fermented "racism" against Asians. This was their motive in those early months to play it down.
.....member enough of the stupid shit they said 3 years ago.

Before something can be worse than another thing... There indeed needs to be another thing. There isn't any evidence that a 'new virus' did indeed emerge in 2019... There isn't proof for a virus at all. It is simply assumed to be the cause of diseases, when they can't come up with an explanation. Especially when there is a cumulative occurrence of similar conditions within a population. 2019 they had several cases of atypical pneumonia in a hospital in Wuhan... That was than explained as a new 'disease'... Well, it isn't. (Atypical) pneumonia is a common cause of death and you may get more of this in toxic environments... No virus needed, none at all.

Against the "new virus pandemic" thesis, there was lots of skepticism at the moment. However people changed their minds on this as soon as they knew about people that were diagnosed with "Covid"... Especially when it was the hospitalized grand mother that was in ICU. Then they started "trusting the experts" again. Which may be a doctor they knew for long, who was perhaps in the same country club or church. Suddenly they became Corona's Witnesses". That the only reason for them experts to make that 'COVID diagnosis' was a fraudulent 'test' was ignored. That the doctors would have made a totally different analysis with the same symptoms a couple of years ago was ignored as well.

And virtually nobody asked the question of what the evidence for a new virus was and whether the evidence was remotely valid. Well after reading the journal articles with sound scientific methodology in mind it turned out that there was no proof of virus at all. But try to explain that to people that only read summaries or headings and then believe what they say. Few people bother reading and analyzing the method parts of research articles as that can be quite labor some (it was for me). But mapping out the design of the experiment, it quickly became clear that they didn't "isolate" anything... Didn't demonstrate that they even had a virus... Didn't do control experiments, didn't demonstrate that they've discovered the cause of patients condition, etc. It was scientific fraud... plain and simple... every time they replicated it.

Those in the medical field (I recall them from university to be dimwits, when it came to logic 101) usually have no clue about proper scientific methodology they don't even know what this is or what constitutes a good logical, inductive or deductive argument. They have no clue how a hypothesis has to be proven. They think that pointing to Y is proof of X causes Y... It simply isn't. Even, if you could demonstrate that X is indeed an entity, which you never did to begin with. What they believe in is appeals to authority and ad populum arguments... Especially when it is in combination ("expert consensus")....

I get that doctors are in it either for fame or compassion, but the lack of logic among those people was shocking to me. There is of course exceptions for this... They admitted being foole

When one position is demonized as "evil" by the media, the claim of "expert consensus" is thrown out the window. In the US, it's often falsely claimed that there is "expert consensus" that biological race isn't real, and scientists arguing that it is real are "racists" peddling an agenda. But there is no consensus. China (where the issue isn't politicized) has a consensus though, and the consensus is that the concept is unquestionably valid: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/374899

Recently this was shown among evolutionary researchers: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513822000836

Fi8sUjMXoAEXN94.jpg

Western researchers, depending on who you asked, would agree more or less to a race realist understanding so-long as you didn't use the word "race". This has been known for a long time, and still holds true today as this new study shows.

When I read 'evolutionary biologist' I start cringing.... The job title already presupposes what none of those folks has ever proven (mud to musician evolution). When confronted they resort to words-play conflating variation within organisms over time with the emergence of new -types of organisms.

That words-play is what keeps the race-debate going as well... Lewontin's Fallacy. They'll cite genetic markers and their apparent random occurrence, but ignore for example that except DNA there are various other processes that give you long strings of RNA-molecules. With other words genetic biochemistry works with muddy empirical data to begin with. Then there is of course the issue of in group variety, which is to be expected over time as well. All to by pass the apparent differences between human population, which persist over time.

[Webmaster]

Let's not have this thread devolve into a discussion about every controversial topic under the sun. Use the PM function for that.

Webmaster