Sunday, June 2, 2013

Scientific Aversion to Science

The following is from my recent exchange with professed scientific skeptic sofiarune.  I'm not going to make this post unduly long by also including her replies to me.  If you know who she is, you can pretty well guess what she says.  If you don't know who she is, it doesn't matter what she says -- because, as I suggest, she's rendered herself irrelevant in the race and IQ debate.'s sad that you think it's the job of scientists to keep people ignorant of the findings of racial science. I seem to recall you allying with the forces of suppression in advocating that Rushton be fired for his research.

This is the epitome of the anti-scientific mindset:


I thought Rushton's argument that darker pigmentation helps explain higher rates of aggression in blacks was a bit of stretch. I also found it curious that he used surveys of public perceptions as evidence.

But Nisbett's failings in pursuit of his egalitarian thesis are far more obvious, egregious, numerous, and systematic:

Nisbett refuses to believe that SSAs have IQs of 70. Maybe more complete, more reliable data for some of these countries would show that their IQs are actually higher. Maybe not. 

But the people who assert that Rushton and Lynn come up with these IQ figures because they are biased reveal just how clueless they are about the hereditarian case. It would be a lot easier for us to make if we could assign all SSAs IQs of 85.  [That way, even the huge environmental differences between Africa and the U.S. could be shown to have no effect on black IQs.]


The issue isn't whether you cite Nisbett, but whether he should be stripped of his academic credentials because of his biased and shoddy research. That's why I brought him up, and you changed the subject instead of addressing the issue. Same goes for L. Lieberman and these other unscientific social activists that your friends on YouTube (Hannibal, et. al.) cite as if they were doing science.

I am not convinced that Rushton and Lynn were "frauds." Did Lynn ever claim that his IQ estimate for Equatorial Guinea was based on IQ tests administered directly to Equatorial Guineans? 

I can roughly estimate the IQ average of any city in the world if you tell me its per capita GDP and its racial makeup. It's not fraud; it's just a rough estimate that stands to be refined if actual, reliable testing data become available.

What about all the academics who arbitrarily assert as fact that there's no genetic basis for racial IQ differences? They're saying 0% without any basis for such a figure other than their opposition to "racism." 

It's not even a rough estimate. It's just scriptural dogma masquerading as a claim about reality. Egalitarians are no more reliable than young earth creationists at explaining human evolution. They come to the table with certain sacred notions that bias everything they do.

And if you won't call for any of these egalitarian social activists who are corrupting science to be fired, then your claim that calling for Rushton and Lynn to be fired was just about scientific rigor is fraudulent.


If you have an argument for an actual, substantive position in this debate, I'm open to it. So far, all you've done is critique one side of the debate while advocating that its most prominent exponents be excommunicated from academia. 

Calling them "frauds" doesn't disprove their heritability estimates. If you have an estimate for gene/environment apportionment that explains the IQ gaps better than Rushton and Jensen's 80/20 model, then let's hear it.

The last time I asked you to make a substantive argument, you said you had bowed out of the race debate and were no longer interested. If you have no argument, then you're irrelevant. 

"I don't know" isn't an argument in this debate anymore than it would be in the debate over what proportion of the observed global temperature increases over the past 100 years is due to human activity. Of course, no one knows precisely. But you'd still argue, I presume, that it's greater than 0%. I would.

You think that just because I'm more open about my political views than you are, that I'm more biased in my assessment of facts. That's not the case. I wouldn't care if it was discovered that there was some population of blacks somewhere in the world with IQs of 100. I don't hold any particular race gap to be sacred.

"Racist" scientists (such as S.G. Morton) tend not to be as biased in their actual handling of data as their impassioned critics. It is because Racists don't care about the social taboo against Racism that they are able to mentally free themselves to go where the data leads them.

You've got self-imposed constraints on what you're willing to acknowledge. And no amount of evidence for the role of biology in shaping non-superficial racial differences would cause you to break out of them. It's not about the evidence. It's about the barriers you've erected to taking in the evidence objectively -- double standards, raising the bar to unreasonable heights, etc.

You're just as guilty as a cruder, more overt social activist, of bias.  And just as guilty of endorsing the use of bully tactics against advocates of politically incorrect viewpoints to try to silence them.


  1. Slapping emotionalists one at a time.

  2. Strictly speaking sofiarune hasn't cited any egalitarian authors, however she has cited sources that does cite egalitarians. I guess that makes all the difference in her eyes, and it's not just a cheap debating tactic /sarcasm.