Ethics and Science Quarantine Zone - The Bear and Badger

hunk

https://principia-scientific.org/who-got-the-scientific-method-right-karl-popper-or-thomas-kuhn/

page turn ftw!
It's amazing how ignorant Harris is on above topic.
JRPC is a layman but Harris really should know better.

djchump

Kind of ironic that the PSI outfit you've linked to there are climate change deniers.

IMHO, Popper's Falsificationism is totally compatible with Kuhn's paradigm shifts. Popper describes* the nuts and bolts of the scientific method in isolation. Kuhn describes the wider acceptance of a claim within the community.

* More specifically, Falsificationism is prescriptive, not descriptive, as it fails its own truth-test thus can only ever be a stipulation.

hunk

@djchump
Ah shite did not realise that. Must google a better link.
But yeah, ironic.

I agree, Popper and Kuhn are not mutually exclusive and totally compatible.They also explain Harris' gigantic blind spot as pointed out by Klein. Shame he seems incapable to self reflect on this.

JRPC

@RedDave

Thanks for that.

3 separate points in response:

1. If I grant you all of what you say, I don't think it actually takes away much, if anything at all, from Harris' concerns. If the science is shit, then we want to recognize this as quickly as possible, and an open and honest discussion about it is the best way to do that. The witch hunts don't help.

2. The science actually isn't controversial. It wasn't in The Bell Curve and is actually less so now. The fact that there appears to be a controversy at all is just another symptom of the madness.

Did you hear Harris mention that well known and high profile scientists, names he suggests we would know and respect, had contacted him during all this saying that they agree with him and Murray but couldn't possibly come out publically in their support precisely because of how toxic this subject has become and how dangerous it could be to their careers?

I mean that really is the point isn't it? If good faith major academics are too scared (and rightly scared) to come out and give their honest opinions on what they think the science says, then this is not a trivial problem.

So one the examples Harris uses in the Klein podcast comes from this guy Richard Haier who decided to wade in. I think it's worth pointing out here who this guy is. Haier is currently the editor in chief of the scientific journal Intelligence. He used to be the President of the International Society for Intelligence Research and also sits as the Professor Emeritus in the Pediatric Neurology Division of the School of Medicine at the University of California.

I'm going to quote here a couple paragraphs from the article Haier published in support of Harris, which itself quotes briefly from the Bell Curve.

The recent piece posted on VOX (May 18, 2017) by Turkheimer, Harden & Nisbett (THN) excoriates Sam Harris about his recent podcast discussion with Charles Murray, author of the 1994 book, The Bell Curve(co-author Richard Herrnstein died before the book was published).

Sam Harris is not an expert in intelligence research but I am. After hearing the podcast, I emailed congratulations to him and Murray for conducting an informative discussion of complex and controversial issues. Every point they enumerated as having broad support among intelligence researchers is correct. There is an overwhelming weight of evidence to support the ideas that intelligence is something real, it can be reliably and validly measured without bias, and the measures predict many real world variables that are important to most human beings. There also is broad agreement that one component of intelligence is a general ability (the g-factor) to reason and problem-solve across a wide range of situations. There also is overwhelming evidence that genes play a significant role in explaining differences in intelligence among individuals.

These points were reasonably well established when The Bell Curve was published, as evidenced by a task force of prominent researchers constituted by the American Psychological Association in 1995 (report published in 1996), hardly a right-wing group. And, as Murray noted in the podcast, all these findings have been validated even further by subsequent research with much larger samples and more powerful research designs.

The main thrust of the THN post centers on whether average group differences in IQ and other cognitive test scores observed among some racial and ethnic groups have a partial genetic basis. There is not consensus on this because direct evidence from modern genetic studies of group differences is not yet available. Nonetheless, apparently THN view any possibility that this may be correct as inherently racist and malevolent. They attacked Harris and Murray for promoting this genetic view and the genetic inferiority of some groups it implies. It is a false charge. There is quite a difference between discussing and promoting.

Here is part of what Herrnstein and Murray actually said in The Bell Curve about genetics and group differences in IQ (pages 311-12):

If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate.

3. As for the point about why pose the question at all? Harris puts this exact question to Murray in the original podcast and later went on record as saying that he didn't find his answer satisfying. He's spoken many times since about how there are absolutely questions that there is clearly no ethical need in pursuing and we should be highly suspect when people do.

JRPC

How is that not game over here?

Kow

Sounds like there are a lot of people telling Harris how really great his ideas are.

djchump

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

AJ

I'm finding this whole thing really hard to follow.

JRPC

Me too.

JRPC

djchump wrote:

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

djchump

What type/amount/tone of criticism is allowed in your system, JRPC?

JRPC

If you can say it in a gif, it's in.

djchump

JRPC

lol

hunk

Have I mentioned the science of Bell curve is shit?
It's shit yet jrpc continues to fall for it. Again and again and again refusing to take in any of the points brought in by me and other forumites.. 'Cause 'conservative' experts agree with him.
See how shit (science, politics and bias) is intertwined?

djchump

Oh hunk, you're not allowed to say that. JRPC is worried that it will upset Harris and Murray and is forcing them into silence. So much silence. We never hear a peep from them. It's terrible. So terrible.

hunk

Fuck it, JRPC doesn't even have a basic grasp of how science works and why the Bell curve is considered pseudo science in light of Kuhn and especially Popper.
I would explain it to him but I can't be arsed. I'm out for now. Doubt he has the mental capacity to understand and the will to seriously engage anyways.

superflyninja

AJ wrote:

I'm finding this whole thing really hard to follow.

Lets see what Joe Rogan thinks about all this. He is right about everything.

jk

Yossarian

This stuff about ‘good faith’ academics being too scared to voice their opinions sounds like nonsense to me, TBH, it just makes me think of Trump’s ‘reliable sources have told me the birth certificate is fake!’ crap.

Academics who are able to overturn orthodoxy with solid scientific findings are feted, their careers are made, this is pretty much the holy grail for science.

There will have to be a much more solid case made for this happening here than a couple of academics feeling hurt that their ideas aren’t convincing people.

This really is like climate change denial, scientists outside the mainstream complaining that the reason that they’re outside the mainstream is because of a conspiracy instead of their ideas not being much cop.

monkey

JRPC wrote:

How is that not game over here?

A few reasons stick out
1 - This is not a contest to find the most prestigious person who agrees with you. Reminder - this all started with you bitching about Noam Chomsky.
2 - That guy is mainly making a generalised defence of IQ which
a) he would wouldn’t he?
and
b) isn’t really what’s under discussion here
3 - On the contentious bit, the genetic basis for a link between IQ and race, he’s completely missed the point. The Bell Curve passage you quoted can easily be taken as racist innuendo. ‘Discussing’ a baseless accusation is furthering it. You clearly can’t get your head around this point though.

monkey

I’m not saying JPRC is a murderous clone of Hitler, the evidence isn’t there to make that judgement. But let’s ‘discuss’ it.

Facewon

JRPC wrote:

How is that not game over here?

Hubris?

JRPC

There is not consensus on this because direct evidence from modern genetic studies of group differences is not yet available.

Nonetheless, apparently THN view any possibility that this may be correct as inherently racist and malevolent.

They attacked Harris and Murray for promoting this genetic view and the genetic inferiority of some groups it implies.

It is a false charge.

There is quite a difference between discussing and promoting.

There is quite a difference between discussing and promoting.

Well would you look at that?

It was intentions all along.

JRPC

Edit lol

Facewon

There is not consensus on this because direct evidence from modern genetic studies of group differences is not yet available.

Facewon

But it's uncontroversial to say that black folk score lower on IQ?

Facewon

As a group of 67 scholars from disciplines ranging across the natural sciences, medical and population health sciences, social sciences, law, and humanities, we would like to make it clear that Reich’s understanding of "race" — most recently in a Times column warning that “it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among ‘races’” — is seriously flawed.

Reich frames his argument by positing a straw man in the form of a purported orthodoxy that claims that “the average genetic differences among people grouped according to today's racial terms are so trivial when it comes to any meaningful biological traits that those differences can be ignored.” That orthodoxy, he says, “denies the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations” and is “anxious about any research into genetic differences among populations.”

This misrepresents the many scientists and scholars who have demonstrated the scientific flaws of considering “race” a biological category. Their robust body of scholarship recognizes the existence of geographically based genetic variation in our species, but shows that such variation is not consistent with biological definitions of race. Nor does that variation map precisely onto ever changing socially defined racial groups.

In short, there is a difference between finding genetic differences between individuals and constructing genetic differences across groups by making conscious choices about which types of group matter for your purposes. These sorts of groups do not exist “in nature.” They are made by human choice. This is not to say that such groups have no biological attributes in common. Rather, it is to say that the meaning and significance of the groups is produced through social interventions.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/bfopinion/race-genetics-david-reich

67 to 1!

Surely that's game over right there?

JRPC

Facewon wrote:

But it's uncontroversial to say that black folk score lower on IQ?

Well it certainly shouldn't be by default.

It depends completely on the context and yes, the intentions.

hunk

Hate to say it face but I don't think jrpc cares for scientific arguments or even understands them.
His mind is made up and he's only trying to promote his alt rightian views. That's why he only responds with 2-4 hr podcasts/youtube vids of 'expert' opinions instead of writing down his own. Meanwhile he's ignoring perfectly valid points like your post above and 'cherrypicks' the arguments he wants to engage with. That's not a discussion.

Jrpc fell down the alt right rabit hole and is now in Murray's wonderland where he has superior iq due to his skintone. Because who doesn't want superior iq due to good genes?

JRPC

Facewon wrote:

As a group of 67 scholars from disciplines ranging across the natural sciences, medical and population health sciences, social sciences, law, and humanities, we would like to make it clear that Reich’s understanding of "race" — most recently in a Times column warning that “it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among ‘races’” — is seriously flawed.

Reich frames his argument by positing a straw man in the form of a purported orthodoxy that claims that “the average genetic differences among people grouped according to today's racial terms are so trivial when it comes to any meaningful biological traits that those differences can be ignored.” That orthodoxy, he says, “denies the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations” and is “anxious about any research into genetic differences among populations.” This misrepresents the many scientists and scholars who have demonstrated the scientific flaws of considering “race” a biological category. Their robust body of scholarship recognizes the existence of geographically based genetic variation in our species, but shows that such variation is not consistent with biological definitions of race. Nor does that variation map precisely onto ever changing socially defined racial groups.

In short, there is a difference between finding genetic differences between individuals and constructing genetic differences across groups by making conscious choices about which types of group matter for your purposes. These sorts of groups do not exist “in nature.” They are made by human choice. This is not to say that such groups have no biological attributes in common. Rather, it is to say that the meaning and significance of the groups is produced through social interventions.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/bfopinion/race-genetics-david-reich 67 to 1! Surely that's game over right there?

I hope you're joking there.

Please tell me you're joking.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories