3 ms·

> "we presume that observations are not caused by biological differences without concrete evidence of those differences. The corollary to that is that dispariti

> "we presume that observations are not caused by biological differences without concrete evidence of those differences. The corollary to that is that disparities in outcome are prima facie evidence of disparities in opportunity." Ummm...the first part is fine, the corollary reasoning is what is academically dishonest. Prima facie is not academically acceptable when determining causal relationships in statistics. The illustration of this is why the power of Hypothesis testing is centered around rejecting the Null hypothesis. Failure to reject the null hypothesis doesn't confirm/prove the null hypothesis as true.

rayiner 10y ago
The corollary follows from the first part because of the nature/nurture dichotomy. It's either biological, or sociological. If you presume it's not the former, unless we have evidence thereof, we must presume it's the latter. What else could it be? Also, what is acceptable for proving a causal relationship in a statistical sense is not coextensive with what's academically honest. In the real world people have to make decisions and set policies based on imperfect information. Requiring premises underlying those policies to be proven with scientific certainty before condoning political action just establishes a default policy of preserving the status quo.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>The corollary follows from the first part because of the nature/nurture dichotomy. It's either biological, or sociological. Nature/nurture argument is not a dichotomy. It isn't either/or. It can be both to varying degrees, i.e. biological dispositions can be nurtured/reinforced by environment and upbringing.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    You're right, dichotomy implies sets are mutually exclusive. "Jointly exhaustive" is the phrase I was looking for.
- MarkMc 10y ago
  > If you presume it's not the former, unless we have evidence thereof, we must presume it's the latter. Your presumption seems to favour the sociological explanation. Why do you not say, "If you presume it's not the latter, unless we have evidence thereof, we must presume it's the former"?

rayiner 10y ago

The corollary follows from the first part because of the nature/nurture dichotomy. It's either biological, or sociological. If you presume it's not the former, unless we have evidence thereof, we must presume it's the latter. What else could it be? Also, what is acceptable for proving a causal relationship in a statistical sense is not coextensive with what's academically honest. In the real world people have to make decisions and set policies based on imperfect information. Requiring premises underlying those policies to be proven with scientific certainty before condoning political action just establishes a default policy of preserving the status quo.

enraged_camel 10y ago
>>The corollary follows from the first part because of the nature/nurture dichotomy. It's either biological, or sociological. Nature/nurture argument is not a dichotomy. It isn't either/or. It can be both to varying degrees, i.e. biological dispositions can be nurtured/reinforced by environment and upbringing.
- rayiner 10y ago
  You're right, dichotomy implies sets are mutually exclusive. "Jointly exhaustive" is the phrase I was looking for.
MarkMc 10y ago
> If you presume it's not the former, unless we have evidence thereof, we must presume it's the latter. Your presumption seems to favour the sociological explanation. Why do you not say, "If you presume it's not the latter, unless we have evidence thereof, we must presume it's the former"?