What do you think of these controversial issues in science

Are you a toddler? Do you want me to spoonfeed you apple puree?

Affirmative action is a thing, that is extremely spread out throughout many sections of government and private industry. It's disgusting and should be done with, this is why it's important to stick to the facts about races.

Also, the averages ARE significant enough, when one group consistently scores much worse in tests, it deserves to be looked at truthfully.

I'm trying to get you to provide a source.

Also, note that the hurr durr climate's always changed argument is nonsense. Have a look through the references I gave earlier.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna abandon this piece of shit /pol/ thread.

Nothing will change

Earth will be ok, humans will survive

If the third world loses some millions or billions of people, then global warming is fucking great

I agree.

The assumption that the different enrollment rates for races must be caused by racism is itself an unscientific presumption based on ideology rather than evidence. They proclaimed it was the reason and rolled with it.

>1
Of course they exist, but whether these differences also extend noticeably to the application of mental capacities is a whole other matter. Intelligence and its genetic basis is not well understood at all. Too early to tell.

Russia was full of dumb peasants for most of its history. The USSR, made of the same people, had the greatest amount of university graduates and native world-leading scientists in the world. Environment plays a big role evidently.

>2
Denialism has to be called out. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, doesn't mean we should not criticise people for it. Sometimes, the bigger picture is more important than oil shilling. It's not always a conspiracy against the white man, fuck's sake.

>3
Good scientist that inevitably grows some >le epic contrarian view and loses their credibility. Not the first, not the last. His views had far-reaching consequences and he should be criticised for it. Contrarian doesn't necessarily mean brave, honourable and correct.

>>Genetic differences between races, from physical to mental
Between individuals. Race is almost impossible to define genetically
>>Manmade climate change/global warming, as well as how denial is treated in the scientific community
Obvious, we kinda need to stop
>>How this guy was treated wikiwand.com/en/Peter_Duesberg
He deserved it

>Russia was full of dumb peasants for most of its history

Along with many exceptional scientists, writers, generals, artists

I don't think you know much about Russia.

>Race is almost impossible to define genetically

>Europe and Asia are the same landmass, so they're the same continent

Just because the borders are blurry doesn't mean races don't exist.

>Genetic differences between races, from physical to mental
Define race.
>Manmade climate change/global warming
This is a real thing and it's a problem.
>how denial is treated in the scientific community
It's dealt with well. If I have to point out a flaw, then it'd be that deniers aren't dealt with harshly enough.

If you go against the current then you should bring your A-game to the table. Relatedly:
>How this guy was treated
Kek, if you're a quack like this guy then you can get fucked.

They exist. Can you define a clear cut between Europe and Asia ? No you can't.

Can you define a clear cut Black, White, Asian and Arab ? You can't either. Spaniards are very pale-skinned and yet share genetic proximity with Arabs. Africans are all black-skinned and have much more ethnicities with a lot more differences than the genetic distance between a Brit and a Russian.

Races, or rather ethnicities exist, and are a useful tool in studying cultures and populations. They are not useful for studying human biodiversity.

nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982205002095

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848613000460

science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.full

nature.com/index.html?file=/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html

pnas.org/content/94/9/4516.full

genome.cshlp.org/content/14/9/1679.full

nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7571/full/nature15393.html

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tan.12165/abstract

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271140/

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707610015

>They are not useful for studying human biodiversity.

Why?

Blacks don't have neanderthal traces in their DNA unlike other races, that's one big difference

Can you prove that ?

All people have some amount of DNA similarity with neanderthals except some small pockets of people in Africa.

pastebin.com/3Lmm657g

kek, there's a link to some we wuz kangz website that says africans are superior because they have no neanderthal DNA, and under that stormfront saying whites are superior because of neanderthal DNA

It's funny how close those groups actually are. I've read melanin supremacists saying that their melanin give them, among other things, latent psychic powers and more muscle mass.

Both of them are wrong and not worth reading.

africacheck.org/2015/03/12/analysis-black-brain-white-brain-the-new-wave-of-racist-science/

/pol/ would probably call that (((da joos))) or worse, but it actually cites real papers.

Just because something "cites real papers" doesn't make it true.

It's a common tactic for racist to cobble together a bunch of papers into an ad hoc argument. For example, they'll post 10 papers on how intelligence might have a large genetic component, then claim it's all about race, when none of the papers mention race.

Nienderthals were smarter and stronger than humans, but they were also reclusive autists.

Humans killed them off and bred them out because we were more violent and social.

Of course, I worded that badly.
I meat that it actually quotes the researchers it cites, instead of just making an OC graph extrapolating data.

>The leading American geneticist Harry Ostrer simply dismissed the paper: “It’s bad science,” he said, “not because it’s provocative, but because it’s bad genetics and bad epidemiology.”

We might never know for sure. I've read Neanderthals got Darwin'd because they had specifically evolved to survive the Ice Age, and warming in temperatures made their main sources of food disappear while leaving the path wide open for Cro-Magnon. It's obvious that some mixing happened - and given that Neanderthal largely lived in Europe, this mixing happened mostly in Europe.

You're the autist. Neanderthals were not smarter than humans. They left no meaningful cultural artifacts or tools, and most of the ones they did leave behind can be attributed to copies of homo sapien ones.

neaderthal cave painting
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/06/120614-neanderthal-cave-paintings-spain-science-pike/

Human cave paintings
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvet_Cave

>Blacks consistently score lower in IQ tests worldwide, perform worse, had much less advanced civilizations that any other race

Race is a social construct :-)

If you care so much about human genetics you should educate yourself on the matter. There's plenty of free online university level courses and lectures out there these days, and I'm sure you can find some on genetics. If not you could buy yourself some textbooks and read through them yourself.

>score lower in IQ tests worldwide
1) IQ isn't a reliable metric
2) A century ago, the average IQ in Europe would be about 70.

>perform worse
It's not Science, it's History. Educate yourself.

>had much less advanced civilizations that any other race
The richest man to ever live was actually from Mali.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_I_of_Mali

>>m-muh we wuzes
Learn about history before talking about how Africa has no history. Most of what the Afrocentrists says is garbage, but Africa was not a barren wasteland you /pol/tards like to imagine.

>Race is a social construct :-)
No. The stereotypes and "cultures" behind ethnicities (Asians are hard-working and discrete, Blacks are violent and dumb, White are "better."...) definitively are. Read up a bit on sociology.

>Read up a bit on sociology
I'm not the person you're responding to, but why would you need to read about sociology if it isn't a social construct?

>Sociology

Are you even serious?

>Richest man
Nice going with arab and european money, meanwhile their achievements include: big sand castles

Not him, but aren't mudslimes subhuman too according to the alt-right manifesto? How did they start the first civilization when everyone else was scratching their balls?

>alt-right

those are some tough memes you're throwing at me

Muslims are capable of actual civilization, unlike blacks. I'm only speaking from evidence and historical facts. All blacks ever achieved was due to arab or european success (and now charity).

>>Genetic differences between races, from physical to mental

It's academic

>Manmade climate change/global warming, as well as how denial is treated in the scientific community

The scariest thing isn't that we're fucked, it's the mindset of people who don't care but won't admit it.

>Peter_Duesberg

I think all those people who died of AIDS were treated a bit less fair than he was

>Earth will be ok

What does this statement even mean?

Say thanks to AIDS faggot patient zero who wanted to spread it as much as he could thanks to nihilistic faggot culture

>All blacks ever achieved was due to arab or european success (and now charity).

I don't know why you think history ends today

Yeah because AIDS was totally known about when patient zero caught it.

Fucking children, go back to school.

To understand what "social construct" means, for a start. What ethnicities are, what cultures are, what constitutes an heritage, among other things.

>Are you even serious?
Social sciences are as much sciences as the exact ones, you faggot.

>their achievements include: big sand castles
>lel niggers am I right
What do /pol/tards talk so much about topics they don't have any idea about ? Learn about history for fuck sake.

>All blacks ever achieved was due to arab or european success (and now charity).
t. All I've learned about history is ebin memes and we wuz kings

youtube.com/watch?v=Sc7bYnH2Zpo

Social sciences are propaganda disguised as facts, if you think they're scientific you're a fucking retard

>Social sciences are propaganda disguised as facts
>Everything that doesn't conform to my worldview is propaganda !

How unscientific.

Black civilization confirmed

>Sociology
>Science

>Sociology is the study of social behaviour or society, including its origins, development, organization, networks, and institutions. It is a social science that uses various methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop a body of knowledge about social order, disorder, and change.
>empirical investigation
>critical analysis
Move along, brainlet.

>Sociology

Even psychologists laugh at sociology

>social sciences are propaganda disguised as facts

problem is that African Americans and Caribbean Americans definitely do. Africans actually might since apparently there was haplogroup migration back into the heart of Africa from Europe. You literally cannot give black people a blanket statement due to their wide genetic diversity.

>Genetic differences between races, from physical to mental
There are trends and differences in ethnic groups but this doesn't mean you can generalize individuals by their race. Textbook racists abuse these facts to discriminate against everyone in a racial group, even if that individual is more mentally and physically fit than them.
>Manmade climate change/global warming, as well as how denial is treated in the scientific community
Denialism is cancer as it is often tied in with political conspiracy theories or by special interest groups but so are the people who muddy the water by treating scientific results as gospel. This mentality gives deniers ammunition, as their main argument isn't proving their side but to cast doubt on the other side while not really disproving any solid data. I think everyone can agree however that greener energy is beneficial regardless of the global temperature changes as everyone knows that carbon byproduct producing sources cause visible pollution
>How this guy was treated wikiwand.com/en/Peter_Duesberg
The result of degeneration of scientific integrity

I'm not racist but we should slaughter the inferior races.

Can you provide evidence that Sociology isn't a science, other than "muh feels" ?

Data is data and whether it is social data is irrelevant. You view statistics, make models, and come to conclusions the same. Its a real science. What makes it a joke is that it has no impact on actually progressing us as a species compared to advancements in tech, health, or mathematics.

Jesus christ, Raimi!

>1
It's important to study the differences in races but unfortunately since people are still triggered by the amount of melanin in someone's skin, I'd say it's a slippery slope towards eugenics or at least discrimination. If people will cite one debunked study to justify antivaxx beliefs, it will probably be the same for race.

>2
Surprised people still don't believe this when the past decade or so has been the "hottest year on record" repeatedly.

>3
Deserved it for contributing to the justification of the deaths of many.

I disagree. Sociology is basically applied history, psychology, and philosophy. Wouldn't say these disciplines are useless.

I would argue that positive eugenics IE genetic disease curing/a slow change in the population towards healthier and smarter people is a good thing.

For your second point, "many thousands of years" is not at all the timescale that is significant for climate change. Look up what deep time is. We need to look much further back, like hundreds of millions of years.

Not to be a dick, but if you didn't even know that, you should at least take an intro geology class before speaking seriously about climate change again.

Hottest year on what record? Since the last time there was a hotter year?

sure, but then

>Hottest year on what record?
Pick any respectable global surface temperature observation record.
HadCRUT, GISTEMP, etc.

>Since the last time there was a hotter year?
That's harder. It was definitely warmer ~130,000 years ago, during the Eemian interglacial. It also got pretty close 7,000 years ago.