Are you objective?

Of course I agree with what you are saying in principle. I am simply saying that some "evidence" is dubious and we shouldn't assume that it is necessarily accurate because they say it is.

Well of course.But the point of published scientific papers is that the methods used, sample sizes, statistical analysis applied etc. should be made clear and thus able to be assessed.Where those sorts of things aren't present, or are inadequate, alarm bells regarding objectivity should be raised. Where you effectively have a lobby group paying for "research" these things are especially important. But, as was the case with tobacco, genuine results can only be suppressed for so long in the face of mounting evidence.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes, agreed -- special interest groups or lobbyists is basically what I was alluding to.

quote:

---

He was just using it as an example of a divisive topic where people can lose their objectivity. I don't think it was said as an invitation to discuss it at length.

---

Fine but his example was based on a faulty premise. I'm sure he could have reworded it so that the words matched what his logic was trying to indicate.I'm reminded on a 2003 Smithsonian article I read about how the 1840s and 1850s immigrants (like Irish) considered the c. 1900s immigrants (like Italians) "invaders" because they (Irish) got here first. You don't have to be the majority group to feel "invaded". You don't even have to be here very long.People were arguing with me about blacks being the most anti-immigrant racial group, but my Pew linked study settled that one. I am amazed people picked a fight with me on that one. Blacks have long been known to have strong anti-immigrant feelings.

Indeed, and so is the awareness of logical fallacies, such as appeals to unevidenced consequences, straw man arguments, post hoc ergo propter hoc, part for the whole, etc etc etc.The use of logical fallacies in any argument should be a big red flag that objectivity is not being pursued but emotional subjectivity or bias.

LamarkNewAge, Percy literally said nothing that was incorrect. He/She/It said: Percy did not specify HOW members of the majority see immigration, only that it's a factor in shaping their convictions on that matter. There is a large body of evidence that the majority race tends to see immigration in a different light than those who are minority races. Percy's statement is wholly correct.That's another thing about being objective: actually examining what is said instead of what you think was said or meant.

quote:

---

Percy
How people see immigration depends upon whether they're members of the majority race in their country.
Genomicus
Percy did not specify HOW members of the majority see immigration, only that it's a factor in shaping their convictions on that matter. There is a large body of evidence that the majority race tends to see immigration in a different light than those who are minority races. Percy's statement is wholly correct.

​

That's another thing about being objective: actually examining what is said instead of what you think was said or meant

---

All "races" don't poll exactly the same. There are at least slight variations. 61% of blacks says immigration and immigrants are a threat to traditional American values. 34% do not. Whites are split about 48% on both sides. Around 71% of Hispanics say the immigrants are not a "threat" to traditional American values.Why is the most balanced group presented as some sort of dichotomy between everybody else in the OP (and by you)? I want 100% of whites to feel no "threat" mind you, but whites look like a "balanced" group and thus don't have exceptional views. Pretty much exactly in-line with the overall national feeling.

Percy still said nothing that was at all incorrect, and that deserves emphasis. Two points:1. You're picking and choosing what data to present to the EvC audience. Consider the following data gathered in 2006:a. 34% of whites believe that immigrants significantly increase crime, as opposed to 26% of blacks.b. 67% of whites believe that (presumably undocumented) immigrant children should be allowed to attend public schools, while 79% of blacks support this.c. 59% of whites believe that undocumented immigrants should be required to "go back to where they came from," as opposed to 47% of blacks.Source: here.2. Since whites are the majority race in the U.S., they represent an existing power structure. Minority races do not have nearly the kind of power available to the majority race; thus, the beliefs of the majority race are more likely to influence policy, legislation, advertising messages, and other media. So that is why there is a sort of dichotomy between the majority race and minority races. It is worrying that a large percentage of the majority race holds erroneous, fallacious views on immigration precisely because that majority race holds the most power.

quote:

---

c. 59% of whites believe that undocumented immigrants should be required to "go back to where they came from," as opposed to 47% of blacks.

---

This question (from 2006 btw) is not specific as to HOW to make them go back. (remember the "self-deportation" stumbling block Romney had to deal with) When it comes to deportation, the response is different. Ted Cruz is going to have trouble explaining how he is against "amnesty" when he seems to be against forced-deportation.Also, it is well known that blacks don't always tell pollsters the truth when asked about immigration. Here is an article that references my (much more recent) Pew Poll (the one you slammed as "You're picking and choosing what data to present the EvC audience.")

quote:

---

POLLS DONT CAPTURE BLACKS INTENSE DEBATE OVER IMMIGRATION
Posted by imd on Aug 23, 2013 in Hispanic

​

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, New America Media

​

Though many African Americans have told pollsters they support the struggles of undocumented immigrants, others are protesting for stricter enforcement of immigration laws.

​

LOS ANGELES—Two things happened within a day of each other this month that rammed race back into the debate over illegal immigration. A Field Poll in California found that blacks by a bigger percentage than whites, and even American-born Latinos, back liberal immigration reform measures. The very next day, a spirited group of black activists marched in front of the Los Angeles office of popular and outspoken black California House Democrat Maxine Waters, protesting her firm support of citizenship for illegal immigrants.

​

The protesters claimed that the overwhelming majority of blacks oppose illegal immigration. They denounced black leaders such as Waters, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for allegedly selling out black interests by backing immigration reform. The Field Poll findings and the flap between Waters and the black anti-immigration protesters is another painful example of the deep fissure that the illegal immigration debate has opened among blacks.

​

The Field Poll is accurate, but only up to a point. The majority of blacks instinctively pull for the underdog, especially if the underdog is poor and non-white. The majority of illegal immigrants fit that bill, and much more. Many come from countries plagued by civil war and economic destitution. They work jobs that pay scant wages with minimal or non-existent labor protections. Blacks suffered decades of Jim Crow segregation, violence and poverty. Many liken the marches, rallies and political lobbying by immigrant rights groups to the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Then there’s the faint but fond memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Poor Peoples Campaign in 1968. The aim was to unite blacks, Latinos, American Indians, and poor whites in a campaign for economic justice. Against the opposition of some civil rights activists, King actively courted Latino leaders.

​

Blacks also cringe at the thought that they could be perceived as racial bigots. When pollsters ask blacks their opinions on issues that deal with civil rights and racial justice, they reflexively give the response that will cast them in the most favorable racial light on these issues. Yet, like many whites, a significant number of blacks privately express doubts, even animosity, toward illegal immigrants.

​

The month before the results of the Field Poll were announced, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that many blacks were hostile toward illegal immigrants. The sore point with them was jobs. They blamed illegal immigrants for worsening the dire plight of young, poor African-American males. Recent studies by researchers at Harvard, Columbia, and Princeton, and the Urban League’s annual State of Black America report confirm that black males suffer a jobless rate double and triple that of white males in some urban areas. Their unemployment numbers are also substantially higher than those of Latino males. Some economists and employment studies finger illegal immigration as a big cause of the economic slippage of low and marginally skilled young black males. There is some evidence that the poorest and least skilled blacks have lost jobs to illegal immigrants.

​

But that job loss is not unique to blacks. Unskilled workers of all ethnic groups, including white unskilled workers, lose jobs as the number of unskilled laborers increases regardless of whether those in the expanding pool of unskilled workers are illegal immigrants or native-born.

​

Even if illegal immigration has little or no adverse economic impact on the urban poor, many fervently believe that it does. When an issue stirs intense passions and fears, belief can trump reality. That’s plainly evident in the blistering comments that many blacks have made on black talk radio shows in recent weeks slamming illegal immigrants. Some even implore blacks not to join immigrant rights protests. Many of them cite the remark that Mexican President Vicente Fox made last May in a speech in the seacoast town of Puerto Vallarta. Fox praised Mexicans for their dignity and work ethic, and their willingness to work the hardest, and dirtiest jobs in the United States. But he then added that they worked jobs that not even blacks want to do. This impolitic gaffe at best was insensitive, at worst racially demeaning. Many blacks were furious at Fox and took the remark as evidence that Mexicans disdained blacks.

​

While civil rights leaders and black Democrats now firmly support illegal immigrants’ rights, for a long time they were mute on the issue. The Congressional Black Caucus opposed the Sensenbrenner bill in the House last December. But it made little effort to expose the punitive and draconian provisions of the bill, let alone inform and engage blacks on how illegal immigration impacts their interests. This sowed more doubt and confusion about illegal immigration among blacks.

​

Still, the Field Poll and the demonstration at Congresswoman Waters’ office had one thing in common. It put black leaders squarely on the same spot as the rest of the nation on illegal immigration: Deal with it!

​

......

​

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a contributor to New America Media and has a weekly online news and information service, The Hutchinson Report,The Published Reporter – National News & Published Reports. A nationally syndicated columnist, he is president of the National Alliance For Positive Action and author of The Disappearance of Black Leadership.
Polls Don’t Capture Blacks’ Intense Debate Over Immigration – IMDiversity

---

You're moving the goalposts. We're not discussing only issues about HOW undocumented immigrants should go back (of course, any ethical person wouldn't adapt this viewpoint in the first place, but I digress). We're discussing the broad topic of black and African-American attitudes towards immigration, which you called Percy out on despite the fact that OP made no errors in making the statement about majority race. My point exactly. We're discussing the broad spectrum of racial views on immigration, while you were just picking and choosing select data. I'd like to see rigorous peer-reviewed literature on that which includes sample size, margin errors, and statistical significance of results. You're not presenting exactly robust evidence that can be assessed for its empirical/numerical validity.You also didn't respond to #2, which explains exactly why Percy's focus on majority race is highly relevant.

With it's reliance on inductive and abductive reasoning science itself is arguably logically fallacious to some extent. Science doesn't provide logical proofs in the way that mathematics does, for example.The problem with deductive logic is that you can only derive that which is already present in ones premise(s). To draw conclusions from necessarily incomplete evidence requires something more. Which is why scientific conclusions are tentative conclusions rather than logical proofs.Logic is a useful tool but objective conclusions about the real world cannot be derived from logic alone.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

quote:

---

LNA
This question (from 2006 btw) is not specific as to HOW to make them go back.

​

Genomicus
You're moving the goalposts. We're not discussing only issues about HOW undocumented immigrants should go back (of course, any ethical person wouldn't adapt this viewpoint in the first place, but I digress). We're discussing the broad topic of black and African-American attitudes towards immigration, which you called Percy out on despite the fact that OP made no errors in making the statement about majority race.

---

Whites have views in-line with the overall national public-opinion. The OP indicated otherwise.

quote:

---

LNA
When it comes to deportation, the response is different.

​

Genomicus
My point exactly. We're discussing the broad spectrum of racial views on immigration, while you were just picking and choosing select data.

---

Then why was my quote from Pew and just a few years ago while you had to use one from 2006?

quote:

---

LNA
Also, it is well known that blacks don't always tell pollsters the truth when asked about immigration.
Genomicus
I'd like to see rigorous peer-reviewed literature on that which includes sample size, margin errors, and statistical significance of results. You're not presenting exactly robust evidence that can be assessed for its empirical/numerical validity.

​

You also didn't respond to #2, which explains exactly why Percy's focus on majority race is highly relevant.

---

Percy admitted that he was thinking of certain whites as anti-immigrant types when he rush-typed the comment in (something you constantly deny).Pew found that blacks by a 27% spread consider immigrants a threat to traditional American values while whites had virtually no spread one way or another. Only 34% of blacks said they weren't a threat. That seems more in-line with the general idea the OP had when he typed his brief example of peoples views (except he indicated whites were the ones who perhaps held these types of views more than non-whites).

quote:

---

Percy
How people see immigration depends upon whether they're members of the majority race in their country.

---

quote:

---

Genomicus
Percy did not specify HOW members of the majority see immigration, only that it's a factor in shaping their convictions on that matter. There is a large body of evidence that the majority race tends to see immigration in a different light than those who are minority races. Percy's statement is wholly correct.
That's another thing about being objective: actually examining what is said instead of what you think was said or meant

---

In post 20 I showed (with links) a recent Pew study

quote:

---

Blacks view newcomers to the United States as more of a threat to American values (61%) than do whites (48%), while very few Hispanics (29%) express this view.

---

You responded with polls (albeit old) showing mostly policy positions (as opposed to attitudes)

quote:

---

Genomicus

​

Two points:

​

1. You're picking and choosing what data to present to the EvC audience. Consider the following data gathered in 2006:

​

a. 34% of whites believe that immigrants significantly increase crime, as opposed to 26% of blacks.

​

b. 67% of whites believe that (presumably undocumented) immigrant children should be allowed to attend public schools, while 79% of blacks support this.

​

c. 59% of whites believe that undocumented immigrants should be required to "go back to where they came from," as opposed to 47% of blacks.

---

I responded

quote:

---

LNA
This question (from 2006 btw) is not specific as to HOW to make them go back. (remember the "self-deportation" stumbling block Romney had to deal with) When it comes to deportation, the response is different. Ted Cruz is going to have trouble explaining how he is against "amnesty" when he seems to be against forced-deportation.

---

You responded

quote:

---

Genomicus
You're moving the goalposts. We're not discussing only issues about HOW undocumented immigrants should go back (of course, any ethical person wouldn't adapt this viewpoint in the first place, but I digress). We're discussing the broad topic of black and African-American attitudes towards immigration, which you called Percy out on despite the fact that OP made no errors in making the statement about majority race.

​

Lamark New Age
"When it comes to deportation, the response is different."

​

Genomicus
My point exactly. We're discussing the broad spectrum of racial views on immigration, while you were just picking and choosing select data.

---

I think my polls were relevant to the "How people SEE immigration" of the OP (caps added by me).
My poll shoed "Blacks viewed newcomers to the United States as more of a threat to American values ...than do whites"You posted 2 policy views (including one nebulous one) and one general attitude view. One policy view showed the vast majority of blacks and whites agreeing with what would be considered "pro-immigration" policy. The general attitude poll showed the vast majority of blacks and whites disagreeing that immigrants significantly increase crime, thus somewhat of a "pro immigration" attitude from both on the crime issue.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Agreed, but the conclusions -- the hypothesis -- is then tested ... and tested ... and tested ...... and results are held tentatively rather than absolutely. Exactly, but not everything is open to scientific study or the scientific method, and at that point adherence to strict logic can help you form a rationally consistent worldview rather than one based on fantasy or wishful thinking. Agreed, but the point was not the use of logic, per se but that the use of logical fallacies as an argument is not objective reasoning; knowing fallacies can help keep you objective when faced with arguments based on them rather than arguments based on evidence .Enjoy

Science is the best method of deriving objective conclusions we have yet discovered.Science, strictly speaking, relies on the logical fallacy of saying 'if some then all' to derive general laws and theories. The theory of evolution states that ALL lifeforms on Earth derive from a common ancestor. That conclusion wasn't derived from examining every single life form ever to have existed on Earth. Just some of them. Newton's universal law of gravitation similarly wasn't derived by studying every piece of matter in the universe. Just some of them.Scientific conclusions are generalisations which are derived by extrapolating every observed instance. That is why they are tentative and that is why falsifiability is so important. They are very much NOT logical proofs.In terms of deductive logic the conclusion that ALL life on Earth is related, or any other similarly generalised scientific law or theory, is an example of 'if some then all'. Which in strict pure logic terms would be a fallacious conclusion to make.But having said all that I will agree that poor logic in an argument can certainly be indicative of an un-objective stance. I just don't think a relentless focus on logical fallacies is the be all and end all given that evidence based reasoning is itself not entirely without it's purely logical problems.