My 0.02 euros on this discussion:
I originally thought this discussion would be interesting and offer new
insights, now that Mr. Entine is here to defend his claims personally. The
discussion has turned out to be anything but. Nowhere do I see the faintest
indication that Mr. Entine is aware of the distinction between correlation
and causation. Nor have I seen any evidence of that all-important
distinction between science and pseudo-science: the search for physical
mechanisms to explain any correlations. (I am not saying Mr. Entine is
ignorant of these principles, but if he isn't, he has managed to hide that
fact remarkably well).
Also the selective use of statistics irks me. Statistics are invaluable for
science, but selective statistics are the hallmark of pseudo-science.
Especially the double standards being applied here: when Africans
statistically dominate an event it's proof of genetic superiority; when
non-Africans statistically dominate an event there must be socio-economic
and environmental factors at play.
Finally I would like to see a little more effort put into taking
socio-economic effects seriously, instead of setting them up as straw men
arguments or sweeping them under the carpet. My personal experience (based
on 15 years living in Africa, 13 in Europe) is that socio-economic factors
are so strong, that while they do not rule out effects due to genetic
differences, are overwhelmingly important in determining differences in
sports performances among populations. So when I see an argument that
handwaves away socio-economic factors as being essentially irrelevant I find
it difficult to take that argument seriously. To my mind it would be
tremendously difficult, though not necessarily impossible, to account for
and eliminate environmental and socio-economic factors, so that the role of
purely genetic factors can be demonstrated.
Cheers,
Elliott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Entine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "t-and-f-digest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Track and
Field List" <t-and-f-
<snip>
