Liberals tend to deny science in areas where the mass of scientists dare not tread, such as evolutionary psychology, psychometrics, and genetics. They think that anything that could be used to justify racism and sexism is wrong to even look into. Such attempts spell career suicide for many scientists. They will pass around a single study about the “stereotype threat” and ignore the dozens of solid studies about IQ, race, sex differences, and the genetic basis of intelligence.
They assume that all these studies have been debunked. They tend to avoid whole fields because other liberals told them that the whole field is debunked. They pass around myths that spread so fast that by the time they are debunked, they already have moved onto something else.
For example, the “fact” promoted by Steven J. Gould that in the early 20th century, immigrant Jews had a recorded IQ in the low 80’s. If you try to google this you’ll find no substantiation for such a claim, anywhere.
Gould also claimed that there was no correlation between cranium size and IQ and that this was based on a debunked study. He was wrong, recent studies involving MRI-scans show a correlation of 0.4 between cranium size and IQ.
Liberals tend to deny science in areas where the mass of scientists dare not tread, such as evolutionary psychology, psychometrics, and genetics. They think that anything that could be used to justify racism and sexism is wrong to even look into. Such attempts spell career suicide for many scientists. They will pass around a single study about the “stereotype threat” and ignore the dozens of solid studies about IQ, race, sex differences, and the genetic basis of intelligence.
They assume that all these studies have been debunked. They tend to avoid whole fields because other liberals told them that the whole field is debunked. They pass around myths that spread so fast that by the time they are debunked, they already have moved onto something else.
For example, the “fact” promoted by Steven J. Gould that in the early 20th century, immigrant Jews had a recorded IQ in the low 80’s. If you try to google this you’ll find no substantiation for such a claim, anywhere.
Gould also claimed that there was no correlation between cranium size and IQ and that this was based on a debunked study. He was wrong, recent studies involving MRI-scans show a correlation of 0.4 between cranium size and IQ.
No one escapes from confirmation bias.
Why on earth would you pick that screen name? Love your post, BTW. I hope you stick around.
this demonstrates exactly why the scientific community has credibility problems. the interviewer is claiming that scientific evidence is indisputable fact. at one point (24:50-25:10) he goes on to say the following
one side may “have staked out ground that they cant defend, it seems to me that if you have just staked out ground that you cant defend, for example you put your self in conflict with the scientific community then you probably need to be reasonably motivated more because your wrong. in other words if you keep taking this stance then your going to getting wacked for it.”
this is far from believing that scientific evidence is disputable. their perception that science cannot be challenged while religion and other thoughts of belief can be picked apart destroys any creditability they would have. science has been wrong in the past, and thats ok. what is not ok is saying that todays scientific facts should justify a complete rework of society and allocation of resources.
i really wish both sides would simply say that they are using the information they have to form the best OPINION that they can. until that day, neither side is worth buying into.
The point is that scientific claims are based upon objectively verifiable, repeatable evidence, and religious claims are not. Certainly scientific claims can be disputed, but only by providing further evidence that shows those claims to be false. They are not disputable, for example, by reading stories from old books of fables that disagree with them.
And science is not religion, by any reasonable definition.
Liberals tend to deny science in areas where the mass of scientists dare not tread, such as evolutionary psychology, psychometrics, and genetics. They think that anything that could be used to justify racism and sexism is wrong to even look into.
Seems to me pretty obvious that things which can be used to justify racism and sexism should be problematic. 19th and 20th century racist theories of eugenics were used as justification for frankly immoral programs such as forced sterilization, removing children from parents, etc. And of course much of Nazi ideology was based on twisted notions of racial purity that stemmed directly from the eugenics movement.
If you are unaware of this history, I would suggest looking, for example, at the Wiki page on eugenics.
That said, you are right to note that recently there have been more responsible scientists who have looked into some of these matters and found genetic differences between human sub-groups. They have at times been pilloried for their work. Steven Pinker talks about this in great detail in his recent book The Blank Slate.
What is clear, I think, is that this kind of work should be carried out responsibly, which is to say with extreme care, given its historical baggage. Partly that means being careful not to overstate the genetic differences between human sub-groups, and partly that means being explicit that this is not aimed at the racist or sexist ends of degrading or abusing one or another human sub-group, simply in virtue of their being born with a certain genetic makeup.
So if something at present day cannot be verified then it simply does not exist. By this logic, there are no extra terrestrial life because we dont have “objective verifiable, repeatable evidence” that they do. We simply cannot, and may never be able to explain much of our world. It would be nice if science would simply admit that there are things we cannot explain and the thing we can are not carved in stone. I am curious who gets to define “objective” as well.
religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. This sounds quite like science to me….
he says if you dispute scientific evidence then you are wrong. i am saying science is disputable. you are correct i do not provide evidence but i am sure you will find plenty of disputed scientific evidence even within your own community.
p.s. This forum is nothing but propaganda. pretending otherwise is simply fooling yourself.
So if something at present day cannot be verified then it simply does not exist. By this logic, there are no extra terrestrial life because we dont have “objective verifiable, repeatable evidence” that they do. We simply cannot, and may never be able to explain much of our world. It would be nice if science would simply admit that there are things we cannot explain and the thing we can are not carved in stone. I am curious who gets to define “objective” as well.
You’re confounding epistemology with metaphysics. Extraterrestrial life may well exist, but we have no reason to believe it does at this time.
OTOH we have good reason to believe that, for example, prayer doesn’t heal, since we have experimental evidence that it does not.
scienceisreligion - 19 February 2012 07:51 AM
religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. This sounds quite like science to me….
That’s an absurdly broad definition of religion. It would, for example, make democracy into a religion. It would make sports into religions. It would make serious hobbies into religions.
Google defines religion better: “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.”
this kind of work should be carried out responsibly, which is to say with extreme care
The impact of science on society, IOW the uses of science is a troubling moral question for scientists in particular. New understanding is abused by the powerful. Pure mathematicians are grateful for the liberation from public understanding but scientists must be on guard against the abuse of their work.
Reticence to engage in this work is entirely understandable and intense criticism is healthy. Were society not so full of sick motives, this inhibition would not be so necessary.
[ Edited: 19 February 2012 08:24 AM by DEareckson ]
You said it best, “we have a good reason to believe.” I ask you dont get defensive on that point and feel the need to explain it off. Therein lies my point, much of science is belief, as is religion. Granted, there is more empirical evidence to science, but much of it should not be set forth as fact.
At this point I would like to emphasize, I take an equal credence into science and religion. I believe they both hold some truth, are good for society, and neither should make up any individuals complete perspective of life. There is too much we dont know and never will. The more we pretend to know, the more foolish we look when we are “proven” wrong.
Liberals tend to deny science in areas where the mass of scientists dare not tread, such as evolutionary psychology, psychometrics, and genetics. They think that anything that could be used to justify racism and sexism is wrong to even look into.
Seems to me pretty obvious that things which can be used to justify racism and sexism should be problematic.
Lysenko never said that the research potentially allowing to justify racism and sexism is not problematic. I think you’re reading something that is not there.
he does say it, its in the quotes originally and in the podcast. please go back and listen again to the minutes (24:50-25:10)
it is easy to dismiss my statements as nonsense and slurred meanings but harder to really look at what is being posted on this forum. it is good discussion, but much of it is misleading in nature and used to promote an agenda. not just what you or I are writing (and yes we BOTH fall in these categories) but much of what is written here on both sides (progressive and conservative). i dont understand how an intelligent individual like yourself could be so self unaware. either your bias is soo strong that you believe your opinions are truth, or you simply do not want to believe it. Deareckson, in all sincerity, you are smarter than that.
Love your post, BTW. I hope you stick around.
