Re: nbc Jeff Jacoby on the looters nbc


"Ukes" <duke_of_diddly@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4lh6i156gj6fcmji64r08k6b2b16ebve4n@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 00:01:50 -0500, "Gumboman" <noemail@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Jack - The authors of the study reported differently. They wrote that:
> "Beyond anecdotal cases, little is known about what, and in what ways,
> science is constrained. To begin to fill this gap, we performed an
> interview study to examine how constraints affect what scientists do."
> http://tinyurl.com/8f65o And if there's nothing new in the study, why
> would the editors of Science decide to publish it?
>
>>and nothing in the article that isn't a
>>somewhat more detailed analysis of the same thing I said in a couple of
>>paragraphs. Lots of folks just don't want to be bothered by the nutcases,
>>that doesn't mean that those who aren't bothered aren't free to do as they
>>choose, within the confines of having to obtain funding.
>
> Joe was talking about political correctness impeding science and I
> posted an article about a study that empirically established that
> scientists practice self-censorship in order to avoid studying
> controversial subjects that they otherwise consider worthy of inquiry
> (which is largely to be another way of saying political correctness
> impedes science). As I understood it, you were talking about the
> funding of studies.
>
>


My point is that nothing is stopping you and Joe from getting doctorates in
whatever branch of science you choose and from that point researching
whatever you choose. If you and Joe think it is worthy of research then go
do it. Write the grant proposal, get it funded and do whatever you like. I
have no problem with researchers who have gone through the academic process
choosing their own research projects. The fact that the projects they choose
may not be the ones you would like them to choose concerns me not at all.




>>
>>As far as Jensen I'm aware of there being some controversy over his
>>research. I can't say the field he specialized in interests me very much
>>so
>>I was never curious enough to keep up with the controversy. I'm not aware
>>that he was sileneced in any way or unable to get his research published.
>>Is
>>there something I should know?
>>
>
>
> I mentioned Jensen because he has published research on what is almost
> certainly the most politically incorrect and taboo topics in America:
> group differences in intelligence and the likelihood that there is
> some genetic component to those differences.


He chose to do so. Again, as someone who obtained the appropriate
credentials he is free to choose to study anything he wants.



>
> In 1969 Jensen, a Professor of Educational Psychology at Berkeley, had
> an article published in the Harvard Educational Review titled "How
> Much Can We Boost I.Q. and Scholastic Achievement?" In that article,
> Jensen noted that programs, that were designed to boost the IQs and
> school achievement of children who were at-risk, such as Head Start,
> were likely to be largely unsuccessful because differences in IQ are
> mostly due to genes. (At the time, differences in intelligence were
> thought to largley to be determined by environment. Now it nearly
> universally accepted that Jensen was right, and that, in adults, it is
> 70-80% determined by genes). Jensen also discussed the white-black
> gap in IQ (generally said to be about one standard deviation), and
> said that the evidence was more consistent with there being a genetic
> component to the gap, rather than the gap being solely caused by
> environmental factors.


Are these your words or the words of someone else? If so, please cite your
source. I've already sstated that this is not something that I care that
much about one way or the other. How am I to know if this is a an accepted
view of Jensen's research?



>
> After the article gained media attention there was controverst in the
> mass media and the Harvard Educational Review refused to print more
> copies of the article. Also Jensen's classes at Berkeley were
> disrupted by demonstrators, the tires of his car were slashed, he and
> his family received death threats, Berkeley provided him with
> bodyguard escorts whenever he left his office, and the city of
> Berkeley terminated and prohibited his ability to perform research in
> Berkeley schools.


Why? Did Berkeley think there was something invalid in his research? Did
they just not want the controversy? What's the point?



>
> Since that time, and notwithstanding the fact that he is highly
> respected by his peers in his field of study, when he is mentioned in
> the mass media, he is portrayed as a pariah who is a quack.


Again, what's the point? Columbus and Galileo (among others) were considered
quacks at times also. It's part of the job and I'm sure Jensen knew that
when he started his research. The fact that the research is out there seems
to me to refute Joe's thesis that there is some kind of constraint on
Jensen's research. It seems to me it's a case of 'if you can't stand the
heat get out of the kitchen'.



>
> Has Jensen been unable to publish since 1969?
>
> No.


Then what is the problem?


>
> But do you think that Jensen's experience makes it more likely or less
> likely that nonconformist scientists who are interested in subjects
> with politically incorrect or taboo overtones will decide to pursue
> inquiry into their fields of interest?
>

Nonconformists scientists have been around forever. They will continue to be
around forever. They will continue to be underpaid, overworked,
underappreciated, etc.

To be perfectly honest I'm not real sure what point you are trying to make
with me. My only point is this. If you think something should be studied go
do it. If Joe thinks something should be studied let him go do it. It's not
for me to tell other scientists what they should or shouldn't do because I
want it done, particularly if I haven't made an effort to do it myself.



JH


.

Relevant Pages