Skip Navigational Links
LISTSERV email list manager
LISTSERV - LIST.UVM.EDU
LISTSERV Menu
Log In
Log In
LISTSERV 17.5 Help - SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives
LISTSERV Archives
LISTSERV Archives
Search Archives
Search Archives
Register
Register
Log In
Log In

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

February 2007

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU

Menu
LISTSERV Archives LISTSERV Archives
SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home
SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE February 2007

Log In Log In
Register Register

Subscribe or Unsubscribe Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Search Archives Search Archives
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: genetic-IQ link
From:
Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:06:48 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask] >
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Reply-To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (93 lines)
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]
>******************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

LIST.UVM.EDU CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV