>>12827182Lol are you the same anon from a few weeks ago who claimed to be an epistemologist and a model theorist, but then shit on statistics and probability, and hadn't even heard about measurable sets or sigma algebras?
Once again, you are proving that you don't understand the subject that you're talking about. Now you're claiming that psychological and biological claims are meaningless if you haven't already identified a causal mechanism that accounts for your claim. That's no biology or physiology. You claim to care about epistemology, but that is a retarded epistemological standard to have. It's literally god of the gaps - if we don't have a complete, perfect, systematic explanation, then you claim that we don't have any explanation at all. But that's not how science works. By that reasoning, for instance, diseases like schizophrenia don't actually exist in any meaningful sense, because we haven't identified a unique mechanism that can explain every possible instance of schizophrenia. Also, we make claims about intelligence all the time, without having a mechanistic physiological basis for doing so. Actually, most discussions and data on intelligence probably concerns behavioral observation - which makes perfect sense, given that 'intelligence' is a behavioral, rather than a physiological concept. For instance, any biologist or animal psychologist would tell you that dolphins are smarter than mice. We don't need a robust, mechanistic physiological theory of intelligence to make this kind of claim, because observable behavior is sufficient.
You don't have to be a conservative or a racist to acknowledge that there are some minor differences in cognitive function between human populations. I don't think that should be a controversial claim. These differences aren't super significant, and it's not a scientific topic that I find very interesting, but they exist, and there is no reason to deny the existence of such differences altogether.
