|only one critique of Cavilli Sforza|
- Monday, April 30 2012, 14:50:57 (UTC)|
from *** - *** - Windows NT - Mozilla
SEARCH THROUGH VDARE.com ARCHIVES
05/31/00 - Cavalli-Sforza II and Seven Dumb Ideas About Race
By Steve Sailer on May 31, 2000 at 1:00pm
Cavalli-Sforza's Ink Cloud
Cavalli-Sforza II: Seven Dumb Ideas about Race
Race is a topic of such enormous importance that it's essential to think clearly about it. Yet much of the intelligentsia now attempts to deal with the problem by defining race as merely a mass hallucination afflicting the entire human race - other than we few members of the Great and the Good. As we saw in last week's column on the schizophrenic writings of the leading population geneticist, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, much of the professoriat now publicly deny the very reality of race. Prominent anthropologist C. Loring Brace asserts, "There is no such thing as a biological entity that warrants the term 'race.'" The American Association of Physical Anthropologists recently announced: "… old biological concepts of race no longer provide scientifically valid distinctions…" Similarly, the American Anthropological Association proclaimed " … differentiating species into biologically defined 'races' has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation…"
...if you recall, Standford University, where this guy teaches, was also the place that gave us the Standford-Binet IQ Test which was used for decades to bedevil students, but mostly send non-white kids to a "second track"....that test was dumped long ago as being meaningless, at what it CLAIMED it showed.
...next from Stanford was "The Bell Curve", another thinly disguised way to show that race did matter and the white race was supreme, though not in those words, of course...that too was discredited soon after...
..and now we have Cavilli-Sforza trying to do basically the same thing...tell us that there is way to show a superior race by "tracing genes".
And of course before all these guys there was Phrenology, the "science" of being able tell personality traits by feeling the bumps on a head! That didn't last long either.
What all these scientists are trying to do is justify white Supremacy...they did less subtly before, except for the bumps-on-the-head scientist, but increasingly, as they've been caught with their pants down, they've had to "modify their research", which means use enough mumbo jumbo code that few will knwo what the hell they are talking about OR, how to disprove them, or even have the funds to do so...they're also counting on the highest elite in their field being occupied by like-minded scientists...meaning white people.
Oh, and I forgot the infamous Duke University Study which "proved" that Blacks have thicker skulls than Whites. Why did they study this? because, "you have a think skull" was a a popular way of saying you were stupid and we all knew Blacks had to be stupid. They published their results and the white world went and had a drink to celebrate.
Then someone looked closely at how they conducted the study, because no duplication of the study yielded the same results...the best refutation came from a university in the North..and this was crucial because Duke is in the South. It was determined that the method used was all wrong...for one thing the skulls of the two types were clearly marked and placed in separate piles, meaning the researchers knew which was a Black skull and which was a White skull...tests revealed that the researchers, all of them white, had ever so unconsciously pressed down just a leetle harder on the micrometers used in testing skull thickness...where they knew the skull was white, they dialed down just a bit harder..anyone who's used one knows you have to be very light of touch to get an accurate reading, especially when testing two populations...turned out that racial bias, plus sloppy methodology was responsible..there was NO statistical difference between skulls, and today, we can see what really drove this "scientific" experiment in the first place.
When Cavilli Sforza placed "assyrians" to one side, without realizing that the ONLY people to identify themselves that way were Christians, he blew his science. For their assyrian "identity" has never been proven, "scientifically" or in any other way...therefor there was no basis on which to call them "assyrian" except the information they themselves provided...very UNscientific. Turns out the actual definition of assyrian is: Christian. What hew as measuring was variations between Christians and Muslims, or Persian Muslims....and that's not what he wa ssupposedly looking into.
The full topic:|