Hey, wait a minute, Michael. All of a sudden we're talking about
TACTICS for challenging what you finally admit is "racist ideology"?
Fine, but that's a wholly different discussion than the one we were
having, which was about how YOU see this sort of research, how YOU
see genetically engineered agriculture, how YOU see Bush's 9-11
conspiracy assertions, how YOU view alternative medicine and health care.
I'd love to have a discussion about how to organize OTHERS, but
that's not what we were discussing.
You still have not answered Jonathan's questions about THAT.
Mitchel Cohen
At 04:47 PM 2/21/2007, Michael Balter wrote:
>"In other words, the most such an experiment can anticipate in the way
>of a positive effect is one which is socially relevant ONLY
>AS A LIE. That being so, I DON'T CARE whether the controls
>are scrupulously in place and analysis double blind and what
>have you; at least I don't care much; the whole project is
>unhelpful."
>
>This is a rather remarkable example of why the left is so
>ineffective. Whether or not YOU care is not very important to the
>issue of how to fight racist ideology, in particular its scientific
>form. Did Gould say he didn't care? No, he wrote The Mismeasure of
>Man and tackled all of the arguments of the Jensens and Shockleys
>meticulously. I see the same problem with mosts of the other posts
>today. While you trumpet your ideological purity, scientific racism
>is on the rise again. The issue is NOT to convince ME that there is
>no basis for racial differences in intelligence, nor to convince ME
>that there is no such thing as race, nor to convince ME that there
>are minimal differences in intelligence amongst individuals. The
>task is to be influential in the society at large, and quite frankly
>few people in this debate are demonstrating that they have a
>strategy for doing that or even an understanding that this is the
>main responsibility of a progressive leftist.
>
>M
>
>On 2/21/07, Chandler Davis
><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Responding to Michael Balter's message Wednesday morning......
>You understate the case against the race-IQ testers. Suppose
>Lahn or anyone these days defines a "race" in a genetically
>objective way, and claims to have found a link between race
>and intelligence. Everyone including the tester knows that
>such a finding will be interpreted by the lay public as a
>finding that every member of group A is smarter than every
>member of group B. (Recall Jose's hypothetical phrasing a
>few hundred posts ago.) Everyone also knows this is not a
>credible conclusion. Philippe Rushton is saying he can play
>the piano better than Oscar Peterson? Really?! Furthermore,
>everyone knows it before the experiment is begun. In other
>words, the most such an experiment can anticipate in the way
>of a positive effect is one which is socially relevant ONLY
>AS A LIE. That being so, I DON'T CARE whether the controls
>are scrupulously in place and analysis double blind and what
>have you; at least I don't care much; the whole project is
>unhelpful.
> Do I believe that there are minuscule differences in
>IQ (or most any other measurable trait) between group A and
>group B? Sure, I assume there are-- no matter what group A
>and group B are, and no matter what the trait is. Can I
>guess which way the superiority lies? Usually not. But--
>so what? What is the consequence for college admissions, or
>the right to vote, or the right to live in Stuyvesant Town?
>Those matters can be discussed without benefit of genetics.
>They need social statistics (like, Native populations in
>several countries have very low proportion of college grads),
>but genetics gives no hope of helping. It's good to test
>your thinking about such issues against the variable of sex.
>The difference in average muscular strength (by any measure)
>between 15-year-old males and 15-year-old females in almost
>any human population is going to be measurable, and larger
>than the differences between "races". That is not generally
>taken today as an argument for not letting women in the gym.
> Chandler
>
>
>
>
>--
><http://www.michaelbalter.com>www.michaelbalter.com
>
>******************************************
>Michael Balter
>Contributing Correspondent, Science
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>******************************************
|
