|
|
Re: Lieber's review
David DeGusta (degusta@UCLINK.BERKELEY.EDU)
Wed, 26 Oct 1994 12:32:52 -0800
>3) Correlations do not identify causes (contra DeGusta)
>4) It requires identification of every gene and every [chemical] pathway
> for racial traits (contra DeGusta)
Nice work. You have me saying the complete OPPOSITE of what I did,
in fact, say! Where, exactly, did you get that from? My point of view on
this has been expressed now three separate times in the past week or so. It
has been made abundantly clear that I AGREE (again, AGREE) that
correlations do not equal causation!!! I also AGREE that you have to
demonstrate the mechanism(s) of causation!! I have been a strident
proponent of these views for some time now, and I am amazed and
disappointed to find myself identified in a very public forum as being in
opposition to these ideas, especially in regards the very important topic
of race.
Here are excerpts from the relevant posts: } = me, > = someone
else. I've capitalized the important bits. Y'all can decide if I was
unclear.
David DeGusta
Department of Anthropology
University of California, Berkeley
>A correlation is not a test of a hypothesis, no matter how
>sophisticated the statistics are.
}VERY TRUE, INDEED.
}...many researchers wholeheartedly believe that there is a
}genetic basis for schizophrenia, alcoholism, and even complex
}social behaviors like warning displays, agression, or "altruism."
}Yet, to the best of my knowledge, no hard data exists regarding the
}locations of the supposed genes, let alone the relevant biochemical
}pathways. So, in my opinion, the causal connection is also _currently_
}lacking here.
}NOT THAT WE SHOULD LET RUSHTON OFF EASY, BUT THAT
}WE SHOULD BE MORE RIGOROUS WITH HYPOTHESES THAT WE
}TEND TO EMPIRICALLY AGREE WITH.
>Second, I think it was David Degusta that mentioned that we seem to be holding
>Rushton to a different standard of evidence. This seems true, but we also hold
>medical trials of new medicines to a different standard of evidence too.
>That's because of the potential for harm.
}Sorry to bug the whole list with this, but I want to make sure the record
is clear }regarding my view of Rushton's ideas. I WAS VERY EXPLICIT THAT I
THOUGHT IT }WAS *GOOD* THAT WE HELD RUSHTON TO A VERY STRICT STANDARD; ....
I }JUST WISHED WE WOULD *ALSO* BE EQUALLY CRITICAL OF HYPOTHESES THAT }WE
LIKE THE SOUND OF.
>I misrepresented Dave DeGusta's position in my last post. His problem was with
>a double standard--one for Rushton and another for the people with whom we
>agree. He is right in this.
|