Biologists don't make claims like "because X is a species, P is true of X" or "because Z is not a species, P is false of Z". The term "species" is not involved in any predictions.
I'm also not sure what facts you feel we are debating, or why you feel I "pushed back". I don't even know which facts lsiebert is attempting to assert, which is why I asked.
And the analogy you make to physics or other technical topics is a bit silly. Consider alternate technical topics which have critics - consider HFT. Go read kasey_junk or tptacek's comments on the topic - they don't don't appeal to unstated authorities, refuse to define their terms and attack anyone who asks questions. Strangely, they tend to be far more precise than the critics.
Fajitas, I'm sorry but you're behaving just like an evolution denialist. You ask something, you get an answer, you want more details (obviously, because there's a limit to what can be said here), you get referred to studies and books, which you don't read, and it's back to square one.
You call this "appeal to authority", but it's nothing than an appeal to science. I am really sorry about your frustration -- you can go on believing what you like, but know that your beliefs are in opposition to thousands and thousands of studies conducted in the past 40 years or so in many countries. Nerd discrimination makes sense to you? Great, go study it in earnest. You know what, if you publish a serious paper citing, say 20 of the top 200 papers done on racial and sexual discrimination, comparing them to anti-nerd sentiments, I will be an enthusiastic supporter of your findings. In fact, I'll be especially interested in the section on nerd disenfranchisement.
But the thing is, that some people spend their careers studying these things. They are called experts, but if you don't like the "appeal to authority" just look at their findings! But of course, you won't, because you're one of those people who keep saying "we haven't found the missing links" over and over, even though the fossil record is right in front of them.
Now HFT is a much, much, much simpler topic than racial marginalization in the United States. And trust me, the evidence on the nature of racism and sexism is a lot more convincing than tptacek opinions on HFT. Like an evolution denier, you just insist on not looking at the facts, going over your mantras again and again.
EDIT: Oh, and I just remembered how when I succumbed to your pleas for education and gave you the actual definition of sexism -- a new word invented by feminists in the 60s -- you still insisted that the people who invented the term use it wrong!
EDIT2: BTW, you and the writer of that infamous comment about nerd privilege both seem to think that what we're discussing is a lot less objective, and more subjective than it actually is. For example, you confuse misogyny (which is subjective and carries judgement) with sexism (which is simply an objective description of the state of affairs). Scott Aaronson confuses suffering (which is subjective) with disenfranchisement which is objective. Because you resent what you perceive as judgment (which may, indeed, be there) you try as hard as you can to misunderstand what is being said, which is no more than fact.
You call it an appeal to science, but science isn't about definitions. It's about predictions and matching them to evidence.
Unfortunately, we never get that far in this discussion because you want to argue about what words to use (and now throw ad hominems at me) rather than the real world.
And trust me, the evidence...
Not citing evidence and merely disputing definitions does not inspire trust.
Cite evidence? We're not talking about anything contentious, but a consistent body of research that has been accumulating for decades! Type "racial discrimination US" or "racial marginalization US" into Google Scholar and you'll get tens of thousands of papers with more evidence than you can read in a year. If you only dedicate a single weekend of your life into researching this, you'll see why what you said is exactly like that woman who told Richard Dawkins on TV, "but where are the fossils?" over and over, while he kept saying "but they're right there in the museum, why won't you go see them?", and she kept saying, "you don't have the fossils". Well, there's tons and tons and tons of evidence, right there on Google Scholar. And I throw ad hominems because you keep saying "I just want to understand", when clearly you have no desire to do that.
> Could you clearly state what positive claims you think I'm "denying"?
That racism in the US is the primary cause of segregation and marginalization of black people, and that that racism is systemic, i.e. cultural as well as bureaucratic (and so not directly related to personal xenophobia).
Let me get this straight. Elsewhere in this thread I discuss consumption choices based on tribalist feelings, including in housing, being a major contributor to segregation (using the word the way you and dalke use it at this point).
Further, I compare it to tribally informed consumption choices of extremely non-xenophobic people, such as my girlfriend's consumption of African American comedy.
Then somehow you conclude that I don't think racism/tribalism is the primary cause of segregation/separation? Or that I don't think it's cultural rather than bureaucratic, and not directly related to personal xenophobia?
Um, ok. Clearly I'm just a big racist nerd and you have excellent reading comprehension skills. And you are right that I definitely did bring up the topic of causes of marginalization in the auras and penumbras of my comments.
Racism is not tribalism. Tribalism is in-group loyalty. Racism is a property of a society where some races are largely absent from positions of power. If black people like Bugs Bunny and white people like Daffy Duck, that's not racism. If blacks are underrepresented in tech, politics and CEO positions -- that's racism. If blacks and whites live in different neighborhoods then that's not racism. If blacks live in neighborhoods where college attendance and average income are lower -- that's racism. Once you understand that power is the central component in what constitutes racism and sexism, we can move this discussion forward.
You see, if you asked something like, "well, teenaged nerds are in fewer romantic relationships, which are a source of social status and hence power, isn't that like racism", then at least you'll be in the ballpark. But as long as power is missing from your discussion of what you think racism (or sexism) is, then you're missing the issue altogether.
By the definition you espoused in the other thread (which is different from the dictionary and common usage), the claim that "racism in the US is the primary cause of segregation" is a near tautology. I have literally no idea why you would believe I deny a tautology, particularly given that I haven't even discussed it in this thread.
Why do you deny my claim that water is wet?
Seriously dude - get a grip. Read the post before dropping a gigantic wall of text on an unrelated tangent. And please read an article by uncited experts showing that disputing definitions is pointless.
First, I'm not debating definitions. But when a topic is discussed, like racism, if your definition is different from that intended in the article, then whatever you say is off-point.
Second, my definition of racism might be different from common usage, but so is that of spin or color in QM (as is that for energy), and I'm not going to start a debate on the use of the word color, when discussing a QM paper. What matters here isn't the common usage, but usage by the people quoted in the article. They use the definition(s) common in academic circles, or among those who study or care about the issue. Reading the introduction for the Wikipedia article on racism should suffice to at least know what kinds of definitions are commonly used in academia. And, in fact, the dictionary definition is much closer to the usage in academia than to your tribalism.
And that segregation in the US is a result of racism is, indeed, a near tautology, yet you were saying it's a result of tribalism, which is simply factually wrong.
As to Less Wrong, that blog and the people behind it are the subjects of a recent, brilliant Harper's article which I'll be happy to email you, if you want.
In contrast, consider "structural". Structural and non-structural oppression is treated differently. For example: http://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-penny/on-nerd-entitlement...
I'm also not sure what facts you feel we are debating, or why you feel I "pushed back". I don't even know which facts lsiebert is attempting to assert, which is why I asked.
And the analogy you make to physics or other technical topics is a bit silly. Consider alternate technical topics which have critics - consider HFT. Go read kasey_junk or tptacek's comments on the topic - they don't don't appeal to unstated authorities, refuse to define their terms and attack anyone who asks questions. Strangely, they tend to be far more precise than the critics.