JRPC wrote:You'd have to be a masochist...
JonB wrote:I wonder what Harris would make of this. You've basically turned him into a kind of religion. Seems to go against everything he purports to stand for. And no fucking wonder a proper discussion has been impossible from the start. If only you'd declared your bias then...
hunk wrote:The way I see it is Face can frame the Harris/Klein discussion much better than jrpc because he has so much more knowledge on the subject of science and philosophy. And the keyword here is 'frame'. This thing is this discussion (what is/isn't science, what is pseudoscience?) is not new. Kuhn and Popper already described this extensively yet Harris shows enormous ignorance on the subject. Not sure why, he is a phd afterall but if Klein's assessment is correct it's because Harris' wants to get back at the evil sjw's who threaten his career. God I hate the term sjw but there you go... To Jrpc, go out and read some more stuff on the subject and expand your horizon. There's more than just Harris' which is just one perspective on the topic. It's good to see stuff from multiple angles.
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.
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.
I mean, you keep coming back to this pearl-clutching as if that original Vox piece was shouting the Harris /Murray interview down with just “that’s racist and these people should be silenced and driven out of the scientific community!” - but it absolutely didn’t, it’s absolutely fair critique and is particularly even-handed in its conclusions.JRPC wrote:.........
Nonetheless, apparently THN view any possibility that this may be correct as inherently racist and malevolent.
djchump wrote:I mean, you keep coming back to this pearl-clutching as if that original Vox piece was shouting the Harris /Murray interview down with just “that’s racist and these people should be silenced and driven out of the scientific community!” - but it absolutely didn’t, it’s absolutely fair critique and is particularly even-handed in its conclusions. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech Or maybe this was the phantom “original” version that you claim to have read that edited out all those “inflammatory bits”? Lol at the moral panic about moral panic.......... Nonetheless, apparently THN view any possibility that this may be correct as inherently racist and malevolent.
JonB wrote:I wonder what Harris would make of this. You've basically turned him into a kind of religion. Seems to go against everything he purports to stand for. And no fucking wonder a proper discussion has been impossible from the start. If only you'd declared your bias then...JRPC wrote:Moral philosophy and ethics is my jam (with a good dash of medical ethics), or at least it has been for the last 3 or 4 years, and I have come out the other end of that a hard Harrisian. The Moral Landscape, Free Will and Lying are now pretty much core software running on my brain.
No it’s not - you have repeatedly stated that you “have no interest in the IQ thing” and are only concerned about the treatment that you think Harris and Murray have been on the receiving end of.JRPC wrote:...
Well that's what we're debating I guess, and I'm firmly with Haier (as well as the "broad support amoung intellegence researchers" that he brings), Harris and Reich and not on the side of Vox media.
No, really, what’s your fucking point?JRPC wrote:I guess it's as simple as that.
Source? And sure, “junk science” and the implicit accusations in “peddling” are a bit clickbaity for a title on the internet (well gosh, welcome to the internet, I suppose) but the article is fine imho, and even explicitly calls out the campus protest and attempts to silence as unhelpful.JRPC wrote:You know that one of the authors of the Vox piece has apologised for title of the article btw, Charles Murray is once again peddling junk science about race and IQ admitting that it was "name calling" and unhelpful?
Which parts of it again did you think were “inflammatory” and “factual errors” that got edited out?JRPC wrote:Fair critique and even-handed?
No, that's precisely what I thought you were saying, hence the comment. I agree with your final sentence.JRPC wrote:This is a simple misreading of what I'm saying there, but even given that you're a little fast and loose with the use of "bias" there fella.JonB wrote:I wonder what Harris would make of this. You've basically turned him into a kind of religion. Seems to go against everything he purports to stand for. And no fucking wonder a proper discussion has been impossible from the start. If only you'd declared your bias then...
Take (the book) Free Will for example, as it's easier to pin down. I've claimed this is now "core software running on my brain" right? The thesis of that book is simple - free will doesn't exist. That's a simple truth claim. It's not an ideology or a political agenda. It is every bit as much of a simple truth claim as, say, that the earth goes around the sun.
All I was saying there is that the concept of the book, that free will doesn't exist, is now running in my brain in a much same way that the idea the earth goes around the sun does. We don't need to step outside every morning and reason afresh from first principles that we're currently orbiting the sun, and not doing so doesn't mean we're harbouring some sort of "Copernicus bias" (googled it).
Of course, that doesn't mean I couldn't be persuaded out of it, any more than I couldn't be persuaded that the sun actually rotates around us. But I think at this stage, both are fairly unlikely.
It’s kinda hilarious how much mileage they can get out of their moral panic about this supposed “moral panic censorship PC gone mad it’s Winterval all over again!”Yossarian wrote:I’m pretty gobsmacked that that is the Vox article which has been complained about so vociferously. Genuinely stunned that something so reasonable has caused so much angst.
...
Every point they enumerated as having broad support among intelligence researchers is correct
acemuzzy wrote:Every point they enumerated as having broad support among intelligence researchers is correct
Somebody has made this for claim, and JRPC is putting a lot of weight behind it. Is there any evidence for it though? "Broad support" is the kind of chat the Tories use when they're trying to talk up a minority position, it's decidedly unquantified and unverifiable.
JRPC wrote:
This is a simple misreading of what I'm saying there, but even given that you're a little fast and loose with the use of "bias" there fella.
Take (the book) Free Will for example, as it's easier to pin down. I've claimed this is now "core software running on my brain" right? The thesis of that book is simple - free will doesn't exist. That's a simple truth claim. It's not an ideology or a political agenda. It is every bit as much of a simple truth claim as, say, that the earth goes around the sun.
OK so the claim here is explicitly that I'm failing to frame this properly because Face understands the relevant science and philosophy better than I do. Of course, it's certainly possible that he does. I am not a scientist or a philosopher.
First off, can I just quickly highlight the fact that Face has apparently only very recently caught up the idea that this myth about "IQ only measures IQ" is pop-nonsense and was something I was trying to explain about 50 pages ago. I don't notice quite the same reaction to him suggesting this now though. Strange...
Are you telling me that you read those quotes from the editor of the scientific journal Intelligence and the President of the International Society for Intelligence Research and think, "y'know Rich, I see you've got a lot of highly relevant qualifications and numerous publications in the specific field of interest over there, but the way I see it is the reason you're struggling to frame this properly is that you just don't same kind of grasp of the science and philosophy as this guy from a gaming forum and his BuzzFeed articles".
This doesn’t mean that genetic variation is unimportant; it is, but it does not follow racial lines. History has taught us the many ways that studies of human genetic variation can be misunderstood and misinterpreted: if sampling practices and historical contexts are not considered; if little attention is given to how genes, environments, and social conditions interact; and if we ignore the ways that sociocultural categories and practices shape the genetic patterns themselves.
As scholars who engage with social and scientific research, we urge scientists to speak out when science is used inappropriately to make claims about human differences. The public should not cede the power to define race to scientists who themselves are not trained to understand the social contexts that shape the formation of this fraught category. Instead, we encourage geneticists to collaborate with their colleagues in the social sciences, humanities, and public health to consider more carefully how best to use racial categories in scientific research. Together, we can conduct research that will influence human lives positively.
Jonathan Kahn, James E. Kelley Professor of Law, Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Alondra Nelson, Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies, Columbia University; President, Social Science Research Council
Joseph L. Graves Jr., Associate Dean for Research & Professor of Biological Sciences, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Section G: Biological Sciences, Joint School of Nanoscience & Nanoengineering, North Carolina A&T State University, UNC Greensboro
Sarah Abel, Postdoc, Department of Anthropology, University of Iceland
Ruha Benjamin, Associate Professor, Department of African American Studies, Princeton University
Sarah Blacker, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin
Catherine Bliss, Associate Professor, Social and Behavioral Sciences, UC San Francisco
Lundy Braun, Professor of Medical Science and Africana Studies, Brown University
Khiara M. Bridges, Professor of Law, Professor of Anthropology, Boston University
Craig Calhoun, President of Berggruen Institute Centennial Professor, London School of Economics.
Claudia Chaufan, Associate Professor, York University Toronto
Nathaniel Comfort, Professor, Institute of the History of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University
Richard Cone, Professor of Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University
Richard Cooper, Department of Public Health Sciences, Loyola University Medical School
Marcy Darnovsky, Executive Director, Center for Genetics and Society
Robert Desalle, Curator, Institute for Genomics, American Museum of Natural History
Troy Duster, Chancellor’s Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley
Anne Fausto-Sterling, Professor of Biology Emerita, Brown University, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Agustin Fuentes, The Edmund P. Joyce C.S.C. Professor of Anthropology, University of Notre Dame
Joan H. Fujimura, Professor, Department of Sociology and Holtz Center for Research on Science, Technology, Medicine, and the Environment, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Stephanie Malia Fullerton, Associate Professor, Department of Bioethics & Humanities, University of Washington
Duana Fullwiley, Associate Professor of Medical Anthropology, Stanford University.
Omer Gokcumen, Assistant Professor, University at Buffalo
Alan Goodman, Professor of Biological Anthropology. Hampshire College
Monica H. Green, Professor of History, School of Historical, Philosophical, and Religious Studies, Arizona State University
Erika Hagelberg, Professor, Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo
Evelynn Hammonds, Barbara Gutmann Rosenkrantz Professor of the History of Science, Harvard University
Helena Hansen, Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Psychiatry, New York University
John Hartigan Jr., Professor of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin.
Anthony Hatch, Associate Professor, Science in Society Program, Sociology, and African American Studies, Wesleyan University
Torsten Heinemann, Professor of Sociology and Chair of Technology and Diversity, RWTH Aachen University, Germany
Jay Kaufman, Canada Research Chair in Health Disparities and Professor of Epidemiology, McGill University.
Trica Keaton, Associate Professor, African and African American Studies, Dartmouth College
Terence Keel, Associate Professor, Department of Black Studies and Department of History, University of California, Santa Barbara
Nancy Krieger, Professor of Social Epidemiology, American Cancer Society Clinical Research Professor, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Sheldon Krimsky, Lenore Stern Professor of Humanities and Social Sciences, Tufts University
Jon Røyne Kyllingstad, Associate Professor of History, University of Oslo
Catherine Lee, Associate Professor of Sociology, Rutgers University
Ageliki Lefkaditou, Postdoctoral Researcher, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo
Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, Senior Research Scholar, Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University
Jonathan Marks, Professor of Anthropology, UNC-Charlotte
Amade M’charek, Professor of the Anthropology of Science, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Michael Montoya, Associate Professor of Anthropology Emeritus, University of California, Irvine
Ann Morning, Associate Professor of Sociology, New York University
Osagie K. Obasogie, Haas Distinguished Chair and Professor of Bioethics, Joint Medical Program and School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
Pilar N. Ossorio, Ph.D., JD, Professor of Law and Bioethics, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Tony Platt, Distinguished Affiliated Scholar, Center for the Study of Law & Society, UC Berkeley;
Robert Pollack, professor of Biological Sciences, Columbia University
Aaron Panofsky, Associate Professor, Institute for Society and Genetics, Public Policy, and Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles
Kimani Paul-Emile, Associate Professor, Fordham University School of Law
Ramya M. Rajagopalan, Research Scientist, Institute for Practical Ethics, University of California, San Diego
Rayna Rapp, Professor of Anthropology, New York University
Jenny Reardon, Professor of Sociology and Director, Science and Justice Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz
Amos Morris-Reich, Professor of History, University of Haifa
Susan M. Reverby, McLean Professor Emerita in the History of Ideas and Professor Emerita of Women’s and Gender Studies, Wellesley College
Jennifer A. Richeson, Philip R. Allen Professor of Psychology, Yale University
Sarah S. Richardson, Professor of the History of Science and of Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Director of Graduate Studies, WGS, Harvard University
Dorothy Roberts, George A. Weiss University Professor of Law, Sociology, and Africana Studies and Director, Penn Program on Race, Science, and Society, University of Pennsylvania
Wendy D. Roth, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of British Columbia
Charmaine DM Royal, Associate Professor, African & African American Studies, Biology, and Community & Family Medicine, Duke University
Danilyn Rutherford, President of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research
Janet K. Shim, Professor of Sociology, University of California, San Francisco
Karen-Sue Taussig, Chair and Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Minnesota
Charis Thompson, Chancellor’s Professor, UC Berkeley, and RQIF Professor, London School of Economics
France Winddance Twine, Professor of Sociology, University of California at Santa Barbara
Keith Wailoo, Henry Putnam University Professor of History and Public Affairs, Princeton University
Patricia J. Williams, James L. Dohr Professor of Law, Columbia University
Michael Yudell, Chair & Associate Professor, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University
acemuzzy wrote:So is the person jrpc quoted as saying there was broad consensus about some shizzle wrong then?
Has jrpc got anything to back it up, beyond the credentials of the bloke who said it?
It's why you can't trust die-hards to be objective. They've got too much invested in things being the way they think they are.
hunk wrote:
Jrpc has sipped from the alt right kool Aid and fell down Murray's rabbit hole whilst dreaming of superior genetic IQ. He wants to believe....
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!