Originally Posted by Me&theboys
I agree that unwarranted conclusions are a problem, but I also feel it is best not to throw the baby out with the bath water but instead to debate those claims that seem indefensible, and not on the basis of opinion but on the basis of fact. I don't think you and I have a disagreement about the need for limits regarding claims about what genes can and cannot explain at this time, so let's get back to Clark.
I've only read Clark's book (not any of his other work), and in it he places a significant amount of emphasis on the role of culture in influencing history. Also, I do not recall him coming down on the side of genetic determinism. So I'm not sure why you object so vehemently to him (and the fact that you do is one of the reasons why I'd like to see a diavlog on the issue). Or are you mostly objecting to Razib?
Clark's thesis was that the industrial revolution started in Britain because rich people had more children than poor people. Anybody who actually tried to do the math could see that it's impossible for that to make any difference in just a few hundred years. The scientific racists love that shit though, and they'll overlook the bad math if it supports their conclusions.