What do you consider to be scientific racism? As far as i can tell, it is either simply a strawman that does not exist, or you define racism as something that is obviously true.
Criticizing the Claremont Institute (a group of insane neocon freaks that along with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies is the equivalent of Bill Kristol's PNAC nowadays) is hardly proof that someone is 'antifa'.
"As long as we have even somewhat open science, we will converge on the truth. The early opponents of heritability and their philosophical critiques were confused. Nobody cares about them anymore. The science moves forward."
True. Let's hope it remains open and continues to move forward.
What do you consider to be scientific racism? As far as i can tell, it is either simply a strawman that does not exist, or you define racism as something that is obviously true.
"In the episode I urge him to be cautious about inferences concerning genetic group differences."
To be fair, one can plausibly argue that even if one does believe in genetic group differences, it should not be considered racism:
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/race-denial-vs-racism-a-false-dichotomy/
Anyway, excellent article, Steve!
Criticizing the Claremont Institute (a group of insane neocon freaks that along with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies is the equivalent of Bill Kristol's PNAC nowadays) is hardly proof that someone is 'antifa'.
https://xyz.net.au/2018/01/guardian-writer-jason-wilsons-long-list-of-extremist-links/
You have obviously never read it. They are opposed to the current neocons and their insane wars.
Absolute nonsense. They are packed with extreme zionists like Mark Helprin and Costin Alamariu.
"As long as we have even somewhat open science, we will converge on the truth. The early opponents of heritability and their philosophical critiques were confused. Nobody cares about them anymore. The science moves forward."
True. Let's hope it remains open and continues to move forward.