Args

The best arguments I have seen are only superficially good. Essentially they raise the bar for hereditarianism and criticize the model. That's fine I guess, but the claim isnt that the hereditarian model is perfect or cant be improved but that it more accurately predicts what we see and is far more likely than the egalitarian model given our current understanding.

You can say hereditarianism doesnt meet a standard you set out, but if it is closer to meeting it than the environmental hypothesis which generally lacks positive evidence for itself and is nothing but criticisms of current hereditarian understanding then abductive reasoning (which is the reasoning science if actually predicated on) suggests hereditarianism is more accurate. And we certainly shouldnt base public policy on an assumption of environment even if you dont think a hereditarian assumption is proper, and we shouldnt pin our futures on a miracle intervention appearing to fix the gasp and certaionly shouldnt agitate against the majority for being at fault for these gaps existing.