He really is a troll. It’s important to know that Nicholas Wade has been doing this (racializing scientific research) for years in the NYTimes. Jump to 14:00 to hear Fullwiley predict a universal backlash in the scientific community 3 months ago (in may 8th) in response to this book.
Definitely among the top five. Kudos, orcenio.
IMO, this is an indicator, if any was needed, of the extent to which the anti-racialists on this board view the issue through political lenses.
Most of Wade’s points (to the extent that your list is accurate), and much of what is criticized in your links, are not what has been supported by the “racial” side of these discussions. And yet, to you it’s all the same “black iz dumb” argument, and any attack on Wade is an attack on anyone that you’ve been able to identify with the “blacks iz dumb” crowd.
One other general note: the 6th point is that scientists are intimated from speaking the truth about this. If this is correct, then you can’t refute Wade by pointing out that reaction in the scientific community is overwhelmingly negative, since it follows that those who support him will be silent. And another result will be that some of the scientists whose work Wade relies most heavily on will be particularly quick to disassociate themselves from him, lest they themselves be tarred as well. (In particular, I’m thinking there may be some scientists whose work is kind of close to the edge WRT these matters, and they really really need to fly under the radar and not be held up as supporters of political pariah theories in popular books on the subject.)
So then, the key question is: how plausible is the notion that genetic racial differences might be a political hot potato such that many scientists would be intimidated at the prospect of being identified with it? Personally, I find it highly plausible. So I don’t find this type of reaction adds much. (And that’s even leaving aside the circular “No True Scotsman” angle, in defining who counts as a scientist.)
This issue could be viewed purely through “scientific accuracy lenses”, and the responses to the pro-black-people-have-inferior-genes-for-intelligence would be largely the same (not including the discussions about past racism, which are a separate criticism). I don’t see how the overwhelming criticism from the scientific community is an indication of this at all.
It’s a conspiracy theory. Pretty much all conspiracy theories have this characteristic.
Which scientists are you speaking of? How do you know they exist, and are trying to “fly under the radar”?
Whether plausible or not, what is the evidence for it? Can you point to any of the linked criticism of Wade (on the science) that is not accurate?
It does not appear that you read what I wrote.
It’s not a conspiracy theory.
But if it was a conspiracy theory, that would not change anything as to this specific logic.
If I would know of specific scientists I would not have written “there may be some scientists …” (more below).
A bit of déjà vu here. If X is plausible you can’t prove something by assuming X is incorrect, even in the absence of evidence for X.
All I’m saying here is that the reactions of scientists linked in the OP are perfectly consistent with the notion that the Wade’s book is a bunch on quack science probably motivated by bigotry, but it’s also perfectly consistent with the notion that the “racial” position faces enormous political opposition to today’s world. So you can’t prove one over the other by pointing to these reactions.
Not even going to try. I don’t pretend to be any sort of scientist.
This is just about how to assess the implications of the statements from actual scientists, cited in the OP.
Fotheringay-Phipps spends two sentences running away the data and jumps right back to arguing about people’s motives and hypothetical biases. This isn’t much different from JAQing off, really.
Hey, how about you take a bold stand and say something, instead of just snarking around the edges?
Is it in fact your opinion that there are no political overtones to this issue? And that (independent of the scientific validity) scientists considering what to say and write about these matters do not face any possible repercussions from taking the non-PC position?
Can you directly answer this?
I’ve expressed in no uncertain terms that racial IQ theories are bullshit, and I’ve laid out the reasons for that. I don’t know if you me to take a bold stand on your hypothetical political implications or your hypothetical political pressure scenario, but in either case, you’re ducking the facts so you can propose a hypothetical that is more favorable to your argument. That’s the opposite of a bold stand.
Most scientists really don’t like looking stupid. “PC” or not.
Making public statements that ignore scientific validity make scientists look stupid. In fact, they make everybody look stupid–unless they have political axes to grind. Which can be understood…money & power can be seductive.
I guess that’s a “no”.
Assuming [for the sake of argument] that the “genetic inheritance makes black people dumb and/or grumpy” position is correct, you’d think some significant minority of geneticists and neuroscientists would choose censure in their own time in exchange for the promise of glory in the future.
I mean, Galileo could just have told everyone the Sun revolved around the Earth, and remained in the Church’s good graces. But instead he explained what was actually happening because he knew others would figure it out eventually.
It’s a “theory” that there is some sort of collusion among scientists (and perhaps others) to suppress any assertions that the races are intrinsically different in intellect and other mental characteristics. How is that anything but a conspiracy theory?
Assuming that the criticism is right on the science (which you aren’t challenging), what reason is there to believe that the critics are motivated by anything but good scientific principles?
Why, again, assuming they’re correct on the merits, should we assess them as anything but good-faith criticism on scientific grounds?
OK.
How big of a minority is “significant”?
There is in fact not any uniformity on this issue, and even the OP hedged a bit in his/her final paragraph. I don’t know how many would take a bold stand. But it’s also not clear how many have taken a counter-stand either. Certainly the overwhelming majority of the public reaction has been negative about Wade. But in absolute numbers, it’s not like 95% of the world’s scientists have publically stated their positions, and on a highly charged PC issue of this sort you would expect the public reaction to over-represent holders of the favored position.
Which is besides for the No True Scotsman aspect as well. Anyone taking a “pro-racial” position is automatically going to find his credentials impugned and be declared a crackpot and/or bigot, so that the consensus of True Scientists will be strengthened. (Wade himself, for example, has a very reputable mainstream resume. If his position wins out, he will be something of a Galileo, but right now he’s a retroactive bigot and crackpot.)
Conspiracies involve some sort of secret collusion. This is just about a shared self-interest.
The secret collusion is generally the far-fetched aspect of conspiracy theories. People who disputing the possibility of shared self-interest like to call it a conspiracy so as to give it the connotation of being far fetched, but shared self-interest is actually fairly common.
Again, the fact that I’m not challenging the science means nothing because I’m not a scientist. I don’t either accept or dispute the science.
As for “what reason to assume …?”, again, you’re the one trying to prove something, and you can’t prove something from “what reason to assume?” arguments, if there are plausible alternatives.
In general terms, if you’re saying “If A then B”, then you need to show that if B is not true then A can’t be true. If A can be true without B, then the logic doesn’t hold. In this case, A is the outpouring of criticism of Wade’s book documented in the OP, and B is that the notion that there are genetic differences in intelligence between “races” has no scientific support.
It is very clear what the position of **Marley23 **is. And yes, yours is a conspiracy theory because it does ignore the bulk of the history of how we came to the current consensus.
One very funny thing the ones that go for the Galileo gambit in cases like this is that they totally ignore the history of a field of science. Usually the idea is to give the impression that there are currently “Galileos” that are being “silenced” but the reality is that they are way too late, the real Galileos that found genetic evidence that showed that we were a single race had to overcome the then overwhelming assumption and consensus of the past that was a wrong one, and it was scientifically and ethically wrong.
As Isaac Asimov can tell you, after that huge mistake was corrected in the 20th century, going back to old definitions and ways in science will require extraordinary evidence, and we may possibly expect only a few changes to the main conclusion here going forward.
What scientist doing good science has found “his credentials impugned” and been “declared a crackpot and/or bigot”?
What reason is there to believe this is the case here? What good scientists have had their reputations tarnished? Who has suffered here?
So you’re “just asking questions”? What is your point here? I’ve read some (not all) of the criticisms linked in orcenio’s OP. They seem sound on the scientific merits.
What are you offering that logically might change my mind?
Eh? Wade is a journalist with no formal scientific training (as far as I can tell) beyond the baccalaureate level.
A conspiracy still, if you are correct then there would be evidence that a shared self interest is preventing others from publishing “the truth”. What is happening is very typical of the ones that lost the argument in scientific and academic circles, they write a book. What I also see is what is happening elsewhere with creationists and climate change deniers, they also do call what the scientists are doing a shared self interest. What pseudo scientists do is to ignore also the overwhelming consensus of the evidence.
It was me, and yes, that was what I meant. Sorry for any confusion.
:smack: All of the confusion was in my head. Sorry for the misattribution. I’m glad I got your intended meaning right.