Print

Print


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]
>******************************************