You cant say that it is an empirically proven fact, anc then concede that it is a possibly flawed measurement. I'm all too familiar with racists, and you sir/mam look familiar.
You must be familiar with Rushton then, the author of the study he cited. I'd be hard pressed to name a more blatant racist than Rushton in academia... I really can't take that study seriously.
"The belief that there are biological differences between ethnic populations is wrong because the belief that there are biological differences between ethnic populations is wrong."
I apologize if I'm misinterpreting you, but do you not see something incredibly tautological with that line of reasoning?
The belief that there are biological differences between ethnic populations is on its face obviously true, unless one were to postulate that skin colour is not a genetic trait.
As such it becomes at best disingenuous to interpret the fact that he called Rushton a blatant racist as implying merely a belief in biological differences in general.
Further he did not say it is wrong. He said he can't take the study seriously when coming from a blatant racist. Presumably because he does not trust that Rushton is able to put aside that bias and treat the subject seriously and honestly. While one can try to let the work stand on its own, the problem with that if you don't trust the intentions of the researcher is that it is tremendously easy to fudge data, or be selective with your data, to get whatever result you want.
You must be familiar with Rushton then, the author of the study he cited. I'd be hard pressed to name a more blatant racist than Rushton in academia... I really can't take that study seriously.