See, you’ve just disproved your own claim. You said social Darwinism was the basis for The Bell Curve. A number of us pointed out that this was untrue. You then responded with what some critic said. Well, what a critic interprets and what the basis for the book is are two different things. We’re back to the problem you had earlier, where you were blaming the scientific theory of evolution for social Darwinism. Just because somebody takes data or a claim and uses it doesn’t mean it was meant for that use or that the data or original claim. As I noted, The Bell Curve was based on bad science to begin with, not social Darwinism.
But even if it had been based on social Darwinism, that wouldn’t automatically make social Darwinism wrong – just like social Darwinism didn’t make the theory of evolution wrong. You’ve been making the same mistake over and over again by taking the misused result and applying it back to the original idea.
Hitler used Darwin’s theories to bolster his beliefs, and so did American Social Darwinists (two very different grouops) Acoording to James Burke, the communists claimed Darwin as a n intellectual ancestor, too (I think it’s in “The Day the Universe Changed” – both the series and the book). So there are at least three different groups that found what they believed to be support in Darwin’s theories.
I think Darwin would have disowned them all.
For other examples of flawed science being used to support a social agenda, see Stephen Jay Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man”. I’ve seen some recent criticism of the book, but I think even the critics will grant that most of the examples cited by Gould represent a misuse of science.
>> flawed science being used to support a social agenda
Yup there’s plenty of that but I would turn it around as it is more like the social agendas produced the flawed science in the first place.
Science, to be truly science should be independent and open to whatever findings it may arrive at whether we like them or not. Today certain PC positions are unquestionable dogma and they cannot be subject to question by science.
It is dogma that the races and the sexes are equally intelligent. This cannot be questioned. A study dealing with this can only confirm this position or it is invalidated without question. Heck, a study dealing with this would never be done!
That is what I am trying to say: science at its best compels people to challenge unfounded prejudices and biases within themselves and others; at its worst, it gives stamp approval and justification to such thoughts, or doesn’t care about the consenquences of the inventions devised.
I saw a report in which a computer engineer devised a program so that he can track remotely the use of another computer. He can use this program to see what is on the other computer’s monitor and know what keys were pressed on it, and what system programs were running on it. He can immediately give feedback to the remote user. He designed the program, I believe, as a way to develop concurrent system design between two users, as opposed to finding out later that two different modules conflicted with each other. No harm there. But when the reporter asked him if he was aware that you have possibly developed a fantastic computer invasion program, he answered, “I haven’t thought of that.”
If you have come to be aware of the negatives of what you have devised devise fail-safes or do something to discourage its potential abuse. Nobel was the inventor of dynamite. Knowing of its powerful military application, he developed his Prize system obstensibly as reward system for those who use their various skills to help humankind.
capacitor, almost any invention can be used for good or evil, depending on the intentions of the user. This does not reflect poorly on the device or its originator.
A pen is a marvelous instrument that has been used to create beautiful works of literature and communicate enlightening scientific ideas. I can also stab your eyes out with it.
Actually, it is well recognized that people vary amongst themselves in all kinds of ways. That is what makes us individuals.
It has been shown that reseachers are capable of creating tests and studies that indicate that any arbitrary group of people are better at any arbitrary thing than any other group.
It is a fact that urban dwelling Americans tend to do worse in school and on standardised “IQ” tests than suburbanites. Regardless of what continent their ancestors hailed from. In The Bell Curve the reseachers claimed to have factored out environmental issues and produced “proof” that the major determinant of success in IQ tests is the race of the participant.
They did a very good job of that. They confirmed what everyone had already known. BUT, they then tried to suggest social changes that assumed that the score on an IQ test was an accurate measurement of the complex entity known as “intelligence”.
As I see it, IQ tests are only useful for geek bragging contests. They show a strong correlation with scholastic achievement, but a very weak relationship to “real world” success and socialization.
People must be judged as themselves, and not as a member of a group. The first response to an attempt to discriminate against people by their scores on IQ tests should be to eliminate IQ tests. The scores have little application outside of the schoolroom.
DrFidelius, I have not read the Bell Curve and I have no opinion about it. My comment did not refer to it. It was totally generic in the sense that every society supports “science” that provides results that in turn support that culture and rejects “science” that does not. Science is not as free as it should be. Think of African doctors supporting women’s genital mutilation with scientific reasons. Even scientists see the world through the lens of their own culture. Western science today would not accept any evidence that went against PC. I am not saying it exists, I am just saying if it did exist, it would not be accepted.
sailor, what are you talking about? There are tons of studies currently examining sex-linked differences in cognition and other brain functions. Here’s a quote from a summary of such investigations:
Many people dislike on egalitarian grounds the idea of men having on average better quantitative skills or women having on average better perceptual accuracy, but the scientists who report such findings are hardly being stifled. Think about these things a little more carefully before posting such generalizations, or ask a woman to help you.
Kimstu, good post!
Sailor, many studies on comparative cognitive skills among the races have been done. I get the feeling you assume your group is superior to others, and therefore, racial discrimination would be scientifically justified. But assume that there is conclusive evidence that Asians are more intelligent than whites. Would you let them have first pick of jobs? Would you accept your inferior status and let the Asians run the country? Would you accept sitting in the back of the bus? After all they’re smarter than you, and, therefore, more worthy human beings. Surely you see what a silly argument using IQ testing as a gauge of human worth is.
Luckily, all the evidence we have shows that intelligence varies among individuals, but the races are all equally able.
As to this specific statement, it is wrong on the face of it:
In fact, the studies that sailor claims cannot be done are done repeatedly–as far back as Shockley (and before) and as recently as The Bell Curve. In addition, there are numerous studies every year that do examine cognition, perception, and numerous other areas comparing between sexes and among races. They are not suppressed.
The problem that science (not PC culture) has expressed about The Bell Curve and its many parallel studies is that its authors made two insupportable claims:
-that they had correctly adjusted for every outside influence (when their adjusting numbers were often arbitrarily assigned) and
-that they had actually proved that what they were measuring was measurable.
As DrFidelius has pointed out, we (as a society or as a scientific community) have never established that IQ tests actually prove intelligence (and we have not done a very rigorous job of defining exactly what intelligence actually is).
Until we have arrived at a genuine definition of intelligence, the whole point of comparing sexes and races is absurd. (This leaves the areas of comparisons between spacial reasoning, reaction time, and similar topics open to study–and studies are done on them all the time.)
On the other hand, sailor’s point that culture does affect the design and interpretation of tests and analyses is one that Stephen J. Gould makes over and over again. There are things that we do not examine or results that we do not identify because cultural perceptions guide us or prevent us from seeing other possibilities.
PC may be one current cultural obstacle (although there are a lot of anti-PC people who are willing to perform experiments (or fund others’ experiments) with the intention of flouting PC that it is not a very big barrier). But there are many unconscious societal and cultural impediments to seeing everything that might be seen.
That at its worst may be science at its best, also. Science doesn’t care about the moral implications of its results–that’s up to religion and ethics and the like. Stephen Jay Gould has written a book about this, Rock of Ages, and he uses the concept of NOMA–Non-Overlapping MAgesteria–to describe the separation of science and religion.
The main contention from psychology and science to the Bell Curve was not so much that it failed to take outside influences (ex. Socio-economic status) into account…other studies have done so and supported the general results of the Bell Curve, but simply that The Bell Curve makes glaring interpretations based on fairly paltry results. The between group differences (ex. black vs white) while there are fairly small compared to the immense variability within groups. The danger comes in generalizing group qualities to individuals (Ex. All whites are smarter than all Blacks.) People should be treated as individuals.
As far as what intelligence is: Intelligence is that which intelligence tests measure. This is pretty much the working definition of intelligence in psychology. Practically speaking the psychological intepretation of intelligence is fairly synonymous with academic acheivement. But if you can come up with a better definition of intelligence and actually get the majority of psychologists to agree, you will have written your ticket to fame.
>> I get the feeling you assume your group is superior to others
Goboy, you are cognitively handicapped then. You are reading into my post things that are not there and, what’s more, what you are reading into my posts comes very close to being insulting and I do not take it kindly. How come you get that feeling? And more importantly, what group do you assume I belong to? (You may be very surprised but I will not say lest it makes you look foolish.) Let’s get back to the matter we are discussing.
The only point I was trying to make was that science is very much controlled by the culture. To the posters that correctly address that assertion, I have to say I do not follow the scientific studies at any distance so this is just my perception and it could be wrong or, at least, not be so bad as I see it.
The example of doctors (I believe the Association od Egyptian Doctors) justifying genital mutilation on medical grounds not too long ago comes to mind.
Obviously in Western countries the situation is not so bad and I am sure scientists are not so constrained by their culture. But you often hear in the news declarations against studies that go against PC, especially in Universities. You see cases of faculty and students alike being censored etc.
A friend of mine who teaches in a University weas telling me how much crap there is going on. How to get any attention or any funding you have to give everything a PC angle. She specialises in literature of some obscure period and was being pushed to include more women. There aren’t any women to include! She was also telling me about another professor who was teaching something like “Medieval Saxon Literature as Analyzed from a Homosexual Perspective” WTF??!! (I am making it up but you get the picture)
That’s what you see is going on in the Universities etc. Of course, that is what is in the news. It well could be that this represents a tiny minority of cases and the rest are doing the same work unbothered and therefore are not news. I also get the impression that PC is beginning to remmit (thank goodness).
My point is not only about the situation today. Think of American science just a few decades ago and you will see what I mean. There were so many studies studying homosexuality as a deviation etc.; so many things that have later been discredited but which at the time fit right in with the culture. I remember there was a photo of President Bush naked when he went to college because at that time there was some theory or other as to how the shape of the body and bones, etc correlated with intelligence. Today it is laughable but it was "science"not that long ago.
If you want to call goboy “cognitively handicapped”, do so in the Pit. I do agree that he misinterpreted your post, but that does not give you license to directly call him an idiot here.
Don’t your second and third points contradict each other? Either science bends itself to political pressure, or it is totally unconcerned with political implications, one or the other. And the fact is, it the latter. While individual scientists may get imnvloved in political issues, science itself is apolitical. Did Social Darwinism support fascism? Yes. Was Social Darwinism a science? No. Was it inspired by science? Yes. So what? Astrology was inspired by astronomy. That doesn’t make astrology a science.
Gaudere, I definitely did not intend to call him an idiot or be offensive in any way. Using “cognitive” was just a reference to his own post and I thought it would be understood that way. Now I realize the words I meant to use were “cognitively challenged” (rather than handicapped)and it would be understood as deriding political correctness and not as anything personal.
I am here for intelligent and enlightning exchanges. I am a pit virgin and intend to remain that way as I do not enjoy trading insults… But I’ll be happy to go to the apology thread and apologize there for a while
I would disagree with your contention that science is apolitical, not in principle, but in practical application. I agree that science SHOULD be apolitical but it doesn’t always come out that way. I think someone else (Guadere?..forgive me if wrong) mentioned that science tends to follow along the values of the culture. Anyone who disagrees is censored. 2 examples (both from psychology, where I know the literature best):
1.) Linda Sobell who came under a great deal of academic and legal pressure after a series of studies which discovered that alcoholism is not a biological illness. She demonstrated in “Controlled Drinking Therapy” that by increasing the coping skills of alcoholics, they could continue to drink moderate amounts of alcohol without abusing. Needless to say the “disease model” people were not keen on this research. They sued her, had her investigated by the APA, and police (for fraud). Eventually she was cleared of all charges and accusations, as been very influencial in the field of alcoholism.
2.) Susan Steinmetz and M. Straus who independently noted that women commit domestic violence as often as males, and they do not do so for reasons of self-defense. Steinmetz in particular was given hell by feminist groups. She and her family were threatened with bodily harm, a bomb threat was registered at a conference she was to give, plus the usual attempts at academic and legal censure. Gradually this area of research has cooled down a bit (at least in regards to bomb threats)
Now these two incidents ultimately turned out ok for these researchers, and they have changed the way psychologists think about these “PC” topics. Yet you have to wonder how many others were styfled.
I don’t know that being called “cognitively challenged” is much of an improvement, sailor; I certainly would consider it an insult if someone called me that! But if it was a joke and reads as such that’s cool.
If you apologized on the apology thread, you’d first have to apologize for having brought up a dead thread. Then I’d have to apologize for getting you to do it. Then you’d have to apologize for making me apologize. Then… Hm, better not.
Hmmm…some (less sacrcastic) thought’s on Sylla’s list:
Atomic Energy: Actually it IS hard to find anything good about Godzilla, at least in that last movie. I think Atomic energy has potential…but much of the drive behind developing it WAS to make weapons…and continues thus to the present time. Even Einstein and Oppenheimer had a lot of reservations about what might come of this.
Biology: Geeze, you’d have to be specific here. Obviously not ALL of biology has been associated with abuses. But genetic engineering is sure approaching that line. Then there are the development of biological weapons. Some positivist 19th century theories of biology (LONG SINCE FALLEN INTO DISREGARD) posited that minorities and women were not as fully evolved as white males. Other theories have been used to support overhunting overfishing, overpollution, etc. Again those are no longer accepted theories, but do provide examples of science used abusively. that WAS the idea of the original post?
Cell Phones: I haven’t really been following this whole thing, but was it ever disproven that they cause ANY tumors in frequent users? I thought the debate was still open. I betcha people used to laugh about the notion cigarettes might cause lung cancer too.
Cottin Gin: A product of technology not science. Actually there are some historical theories that do indeed suggest slavery might have died out on its own had it not been for the cotten gin.
Silicon: Baywatch is bad. No more needs to be said here.
Political science: Kind of an oxymoron anyway, but I’ll humor. I think the jury is still out on libertarianism too!
But if it was a joke and reads as such that’s cool.