new start

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Z wrote:
> --- orionaut wrote:
> > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Z
> > wrote:
> > > We still do not understand genetics enough to
> > insure
> > > we are in fact breeding "smarter" babies.
> >
> > Sure we do. Not "down to a science" fershur, but
> > certainly "close
> > enough for rock & roll."
> >
> So coming back to my point, how can you insure that
> intelligence is not a learned trait and is in fact
> genetic. Each of these examples you all keep bringing
> up are just as well explained by stating that they
> were in a good environment which praises education
> instead of just having good genes.

Speaking for myself, I spent a good amount of time looking into the
nature vs. nurture topic. I've changed my view from one that was
similar to the one you've expressed to the one I now hold based on
the evidence I've seen.

Suffice it to say that the limitations of this forum prevent the
presentation of the whole argument.

If you are interested in the question and seek to either understand,
or refute the evidence, then you should really look into the
material that is presented in studies and books, where the authors
have the rigor and the space to marshall the facts and construct the
arguments.

Your statement above indicates to me that you believe in the
infinite potential of each human, that they are born tabula rasa,
and the environment is the sole determinant of how well they do with
their intelligence.

If you're open to the evidence, you'll see it's not that simple.
Then be prepared to integrate that knowledge into your world view.
By all means try to refute the evidence that genetics does play a
part, in combination with environment, and hold onto your world
view. I don't think that evidence can anymore be refuted than the
evidence that the Sun is the center of the solar system can be
refuted.

> By following the same line of reasoning, you could
> also state that wealth itself is genetic, that if your
> parents were wealthy, then you too are genetically
> inclined to be wealthy also. This may seem absurd
> today but in the 19th century, this was a prevalent
> thought in Europe.

Yes, it was a prevalent thought in the past, because most every
group tries to rationalize their viewpoint. But as good scientists,
we should subject every claim to a test of falsifiability. The above
claim was proven false and you don't hear it anymore. Please subject
the claim that genetics does play a part in human intellectual
potential to a test of falsifiability and get back to us :) I think
the claim of environment being the sole determininant of
intellectual potential is well on its way to being falsified.

>
> So getting back to farmers and breeding, what is being
> bred are physical traits for the most part. In terms
> of physical traits, I totally, 100% agree that
> eugenics has validity and is mature. But when you
> start going into abstract concepts like intelligence,
> i think eugenics is far off just for the very fact
> that we cannot define the trait correctly!
>
> Ryan

Intelligence is no different than any other physical trait. You're
referencing the criticism directed at IQ tests not being accurate
measurements.

But do you really mean to advocate the position that just because
something can't be measured it doesn't exist? Think through the
implications of holding such a position.

TangoMan