3 ms·

I find it ironic that you call me a "science denialist" when 1) There is plenty of research to support my argument (and I cited it), and 2) To be fair I gave bo

I find it ironic that you call me a "science denialist" when 1) There is plenty of research to support my argument (and I cited it), and 2) To be fair I gave both positive and negative examples (to show that there is some support of correlation but that it is overall weak). In contrast, you 1) Declare anything that disagrees with you as "simply false" despite the evidence, 2) Lash out and declare me a "science denialist", and 3) To prove your point you link to the College Board, which is the company that MAKES MONEY off of the SAT test. That's like telling someone that Crest toothpaste is the best, because the Crest website said they did a study showing their toothpaste is the best, and that is science.

xyzzyz 5y ago
> 1) There is plenty of research to support my argument (and I cited it) No, there is very little. As I said, put "sat predictive validity" in Google Scholar and see for yourself. Overwhelming consensus in the field is that the SAT is one of the best predictors of college success, alongside GPA and IQ. You cited something, but it doesn't change the scientific consensus: you can find papers published in 2021 arguing that humans have nothing to do with global warming, but the consensus is nevertheless clear. I can give you 10 citations for every one you provide, each of which will be a better designed study than you give, but you could also just put "sat predictive validity" in Google Scholar to see them. > 2) Lash out and declare me a "science denialist" That's because you're saying blatant untruths about the state of the science. As I said, there have been literally thousands of papers on this topic, and the conclusion is crystal clear. > 3) To prove your point you link to the College Board, which is the company that MAKES MONEY off of the SAT test. College Board is not a company, but in fact a non-profit. I linked it, because it is a good summary of the state of the research. I also told you where to find the actual studies, but you'll find that it is the College Board that's making the biggest and best studies on this topic, as they're obviously very interested in showing their validity. Quality of their research has, as far as I can tell, never been seriously questioned by anyone in the field. If you have any other criticism, feel free to show it, preferably in a form of paper citing College Board studies and showing the scientific misconduct you allege them to perform.
- MyHypatia 5y ago
  1) Citing research from the University of Chicago and other reputable research institutions is not "saying blatant untruths". Disregarding all of the research that doesn't agree with your view point and declaring them "not science" and "blatant untruths" is just being an idealogue. The conclusion is not crystal clear at all. It is a mixed bag, as anyone can clearly see in Google Scholar. 2) Nonprofits ARE companies and many of them (including the College Board) make a lot of money. 1) The College Board's total revenue is about 1 Billion dollars per year. 2) The executives earn roughly $500k - $1 million annually in total compensation (salary + bonuses). Of course, they are going to say that their product is the best. Just like Harvard, Stanford, and any educational institution (all nonprofits) are going to advertise that their methods are the best. Even the NHL is a nonprofit. Do you think the NHL is going to be the best source for research on hockey player injuries? No. Because they have a financial interest in not doing so. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/09/30/how-much-do-big-education-nonprofits-pay-their-bosses-quite-a-bit-it-turns-out/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/09/...

xyzzyz 5y ago

> 1) There is plenty of research to support my argument (and I cited it) No, there is very little. As I said, put "sat predictive validity" in Google Scholar and see for yourself. Overwhelming consensus in the field is that the SAT is one of the best predictors of college success, alongside GPA and IQ. You cited something, but it doesn't change the scientific consensus: you can find papers published in 2021 arguing that humans have nothing to do with global warming, but the consensus is nevertheless clear. I can give you 10 citations for every one you provide, each of which will be a better designed study than you give, but you could also just put "sat predictive validity" in Google Scholar to see them. > 2) Lash out and declare me a "science denialist" That's because you're saying blatant untruths about the state of the science. As I said, there have been literally thousands of papers on this topic, and the conclusion is crystal clear. > 3) To prove your point you link to the College Board, which is the company that MAKES MONEY off of the SAT test. College Board is not a company, but in fact a non-profit. I linked it, because it is a good summary of the state of the research. I also told you where to find the actual studies, but you'll find that it is the College Board that's making the biggest and best studies on this topic, as they're obviously very interested in showing their validity. Quality of their research has, as far as I can tell, never been seriously questioned by anyone in the field. If you have any other criticism, feel free to show it, preferably in a form of paper citing College Board studies and showing the scientific misconduct you allege them to perform.

MyHypatia 5y ago
1) Citing research from the University of Chicago and other reputable research institutions is not "saying blatant untruths". Disregarding all of the research that doesn't agree with your view point and declaring them "not science" and "blatant untruths" is just being an idealogue. The conclusion is not crystal clear at all. It is a mixed bag, as anyone can clearly see in Google Scholar. 2) Nonprofits ARE companies and many of them (including the College Board) make a lot of money. 1) The College Board's total revenue is about 1 Billion dollars per year. 2) The executives earn roughly $500k - $1 million annually in total compensation (salary + bonuses). Of course, they are going to say that their product is the best. Just like Harvard, Stanford, and any educational institution (all nonprofits) are going to advertise that their methods are the best. Even the NHL is a nonprofit. Do you think the NHL is going to be the best source for research on hockey player injuries? No. Because they have a financial interest in not doing so. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/09/30/how-much-do-big-education-nonprofits-pay-their-bosses-quite-a-bit-it-turns-out/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/09/...