If there is no such thing as "race" (defined 
genetically/biologically), then there is no such thing as racial 
differences in intelligence.

Mitchel Cohen

At 04:06 AM 2/21/2007, you wrote:
>I would like to add one thing, and I don't do this to be 
>deliberately provocative but to make a point. If the hypothesis that 
>there are no "racial" differences in intelligence seems to us to 
>have been proved, and if we further do not believe that science 
>gives any credence to the notion that there are such differences 
>between any population groups no matter how defined, then we have to 
>be willing to allow researchers to test the contrary hypothesis, as 
>Rushton and others have done. Ie, if we are relying on science to 
>support the political conclusions we want to see, we have to accept 
>what scientific research says. We also have to accept that it is 
>POSSIBLE that such differences exist, and that we could be wrong. 
>Any other attitude is not scientific and ultimately does our cause 
>little good.
>
>One of the reasons that I suggested that people here read my profile 
>of Bruce Lahn in Science is that the story of the ASPM and 
>microcephalin genes is an example of letting chips fall where they 
>may in science: Lahn's hypothesis that there might be a link between 
>the allele distributions of these genes worldwide and IQ, which was 
>tested by himself, other collaborators, and Rushton with Lahn's 
>genotyping help, has not panned out. And of course there is the 
>whole question of what IQ meaures, if anything. But no matter what 
>the motivations for doing this research--and in Lahn's case, I do 
>not believe it was racism--the fact that the research was done has 
>given us an important result, especially given how much attention 
>the race and IQ crowd paid to Lahn's original findings (NRO, vdare, 
>nearly every right wing blog.)
>
>Now what if the correlation had panned out? Progressive scientists 
>would have some explaining to do. Of course, we can all think of 
>ways they could explain this result away, but they would indeed have 
>to take up the task. In my profile of Lahn, I quote him as saying 
>that progressive scientists are politically motivated on the 
>race-intelligence issue, and that it is a bad idea to build an 
>anti-racist movement on a scientific conclusion that could turn out 
>to be wrong--ie, Lahn asks, would racism be justified if we found 
>out later that there were differences in intelligence between 
>"racial" groups or population groups (the latter obviously a more 
>suitable term in our view)? To me, these are legitimate questions to 
>ask, no matter where we as progressives might come down on them.
>
>best, Michael
>
>On 2/21/07, Phil Gasper 
><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>But one of the points of Gould's analysis is to show that the whole 
>history of attempts to link race and intelligence are scientifically 
>worthless, driven by social prejudice, not by logic or evidence. He 
>tells the history in part so that we won't treat such claims as 
>serious scientific hypotheses in the future (even if we may 
>sometimes have to give measured explanations of why that is so to 
>those who are ignorant of the history). The claim that there is a 
>biological link between race and intelligence has about as much 
>credibility as the claim that there is a biological link between 
>religion and sense of humor. --PG
>
>At 6:00 PM +0000 2/20/07, Michael Balter wrote:
>>Mitchel, go back and read what I said. I never said you were 
>>"dissing" Gould. My point is that he was effective because he used 
>>science to debunk the race-IQ connection, rather than simply 
>>calling those who advocated such views fascists. He saw the need to 
>>do that because unlike some fringe ideas we have unfortunately been 
>>discussing here, a lot of people think that there are racial 
>>differences in intelligence, even a lot of scientists.
>>
>>To a great extent this is a question of political style, which I 
>>see as a very important issue. Some leftists think that it is 
>>sufficient to self-righteously brand this and that idea racist and 
>>fascist, without much thought to how we go about changing peoples' 
>>minds. That might get certain activists kudos for how dedicated to 
>>the struggle they are, but it doesn't change the world one iota.
>>
>>MB
>>On 2/20/07, Mitchel Cohen 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>The set of ideas promulgating the notion that intelligence is based 
>>on race, and that Black people are genetically inferior to whites 
>>when it comes to intelligence (or anything else, actually), is 
>>indeed fascist propaganda.
>>
>>Why you think that my saying that disses Stephen Jay Gould, who 
>>tore that whole notion of race-based intelligence to shreds, is beyond me.
>>
>>If you actually read my article -- I even linked to it for your 
>>convenience -- before opining about it -- you'd see that I quoted 
>>from the very work of Gould's that you ridiculously say that I'm dissing.
>>
>>On another note, the same folks who think that it's okay for THEM 
>>to malign people on this list -- including calling those they 
>>disagree with infantile, crackpot, conspiracy nuts, etc., take 
>>umbrage that I used (and did so correctly) the term "fascist" to 
>>describe the race-based (genetic) intelligence "studies" of 
>>Herrnstein, Eysenck, Shockley, Jensen and their ideological 
>>descendants passing themselves off as scientists. Their articles 
>>and speeches gave purported "scientific" cover for fascist movements.
>>
>>Are we really disagreeing here? Are you saying that the ideas 
>>promoting race-based Intelligence are actually legitimate scientific works?
>>
>>Mitchel
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Michael Balter < 
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>> >Sent: Feb 20, 2007 8:45 AM
>> >To: 
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>> >Subject: Re: Genetics & Race
>> >
>> >It is particularly silly and unproductive because this is one area where
>> >scientific arguments,  so successfully put forward in works like our late
>> >colleague Steve Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, have been particularly
>> >effective. The Bruce Lahn story I referred to earlier, pdfs again available
>> >to whoever asks offlist, is another good example of the chips falling where
>> >they may scientifically. Those who live by the gene sometimes die by the
>> >gene.
>> >
>> >M
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>><http://www.michaelbalter.com>www.michaelbalter.com
>>
>>******************************************
>>Michael Balter
>>Contributing Correspondent, Science
>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>******************************************
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>www.michaelbalter.com
>
>******************************************
>Michael Balter
>Contributing Correspondent, Science
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>******************************************
>
>
>
>
>--
>www.michaelbalter.com
>
>******************************************
>Michael Balter
>Contributing Correspondent, Science
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>******************************************