The question is what burden of proof should we put on any hypothesis.
HBD says “the burden of proof on discrimination is very high, since genes are a very likely explanation for a disparity or outcome”.
The non-hbd answer basically says the burden of proof is reversed. If there is inequality it’s evidence that Something* is wrong, even if we aren’t sure what.
The question is what burden of proof should we put on any hypothesis.
HBD says “the burden of proof on discrimination is very high, since genes are a very likely explanation for a disparity or outcome”.
The non-hbd answer basically says the burden of proof is reversed. If there is inequality it’s evidence that Something* is wrong, even if we aren’t sure what.
The question is what burden of proof should we put on any hypothesis.
HBD says “the burden of proof on discrimination is very high, since genes are a very likely explanation for a disparity or outcome”.
The non-hbd answer basically says the burden of proof is reversed. If there is inequality it’s evidence that Something* is wrong, even if we aren’t sure what.