Excuse me but the burden of proof falls upon the person who claims the correlation. I knew right off that you must be a foreigner. Here in the USA the IQ of the average civil "servant" must be about 97. Bush is a perfect representative sample. Excuse me again but the last time I looked most Jews in my country were just about as white as the Queen's hiney. Since the U.S. government has coined the awkward phrase "non-hispanic white" as the opposite of "Latino," I suppose the opposite of "Jew" must be "non-hebraic white." All those 97-IQ civil "servants" do such immensely useful work with our tax money.
Then there is no hypothesis for SAM to disprove. In science it is fair to assert that a particular correlation does not exist if no substantiation has been given to establish its existence. If John says, "There should be a federal law against playing chess in animal shelters because we'll end up with a rabies epidemic," and Suzy says, "Wait a minute you fool, there's no correlation between animal control officers playing chess and an increase in rabies cases," John does not get to say, "Prove that there is no correlation or my statement becomes valid." John has to make his case first.
Fraggle Rocker: "He who asserts must prove." If you assert that there is no correlation between race and intelligence, then you must prove that claim.
In what way is this NOT pompous double talk? This is the sort of stuff we find in synthetic philosophy forums. I try to be considerate in these forums, but to pile abstraction upon abstraction for the purpose of seeming to be academic is to insult our intelligence here. How about saying what you think in clear, simple, words? charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com