"Outside the ability of science to test"? Nothing has been so thoroughly tested throughout the the world as IQ, and the measurements of climate data don't come close to IQ differences in terms of predictability. Whatever fuzziness there is in IQ measurements pales in comparison to the fuzziness in climate measurement, yet an outfit like Mother Jones would declare the former "unsettled" and the latter fully proven except to wacko right-wing "science denialists".
Re:The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science
by Alex3917 on Friday July 19, 2013 @04:00PM
(#6072568)
IQ is not synonymous with intelligence, nor is IQ a measurement -- it's normalized by definition. In fact IQ itself isn't even a 'thing', since there are dozens of different tests.
And yet there is a high and repeatable correlation among all those tests indicating that they are all proxies for some real "thing". Call it by whatever name you like--g, intelligence, IQ, whatever--but there is a real "thing" that causes these proxy tests to have highly predictable results.
Because it's a truthclaim that's outside of the ability of science to test, short of jesus coming back to earth with his fairy wand to endow you with platonic (and measurable) definitions of race, intelligence, average, and genetics. Whatever definitions you choose there is going to be some difference, even if that difference is zero, but that difference is going to differ wildly depending on what definitions you choose.