Re: nbc Jeff Jacoby on the looters nbc

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:26:30 -0500, "Gumboman" <noemail@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>"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.

So what? That has nothing to do with the point that Joe made (that
political correctness shouldn't impede scientific study) or the point
of the study that I posted that shows that many scientists avoid
studying subjects that they consider research-worthy because they are
worried about the controversy their research might generate. If
scientists avoid certain areas because of political correctness
concerns, it really doesn't make any difference if funding would be
available for such research or not, does it?

And applying your logic, the authors of the "Forbidden Knowledge"
study published in Science, rather than studying the self-constraints
imposed by scientists, should have gone out and done their own
research in the "forbidden" fields.

>
>
>>
>> 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?

They're my words based on what I have read on the subject, but it is
very doubtful that anyone with any knowledge concerning the subject
would disagree with anything I wrote.

If you want sources, here are some :

http://tinyurl.com/ax9b8 (encyclopedia article on Jensen)

http://tinyurl.com/cypxx (details regarding Jensen's 1969 article)

http://tinyurl.com/c3j5v (1995 APA report regarding intelligence that
includes heritability estimates and discussion of group differences in
IQ and the white-black IQ gap)

http://tinyurl.com/9qlp7 (a 2003 general discussion of the effects of
genes on various personality traits - includes more current
heritability estimates)

http://tinyurl.com/betd7 (a September 2005 article examining the
evidence concerning male-female and white-black differences in IQ and
the taboo associated with discussing them)

The study of intelligence wouldn't be of much importance if it were
not for the fact that intelligence contributes significantly to
outcomes people experience in life. For an article examining in detail
the practical importance of intelligence in life's outcomes see:
http://tinyurl.com/9eazj


One can't construct a truly robust explanatory framework for group
differences in America in education and socioeconomic outcomes without
taking intelligence into consideration.

>> Has Jensen been unable to publish since 1969?
>>
>> No.
>
>
>Then what is the problem?

Now this is just silly.

Why should the ability to have work published be the test of whether
political correctness is impeding science? You totally ignore the
findings of the recent Science study that establish that many
researchers shy away from performing certain research to begin with.
Who is going to produce more knowledge concerning a subject: (1) five
scientists; or (2) those same five scientists plus twenty more
scientists?

If a doctor who performs abortions is subjected to harassment and
threats, and other doctors are thereby deterred from performing
abortions, according to your logic the harassment and threats don't
impede the ability of women to get abortions if the doctor who has
been threatened still performs them.


>
>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.
>


That makes two of us, because I'm not sure what your point is either.

Joe made the point that political correctness shouldn't impede
scientific study, to which you responded by saying that the "only way
political correctness comes into the equation is when it is
government sponsored research." What you wrote is simply incorrect,
and the "Forbidden Knowledge" study that I posted proves that it is
incorrect. (Perhaps what you wrote reflects a desire to get in the
last word, and perhaps that trait is genetically influenced. Usenet
might provide a fertile ground to study such a hypothesis).

The point I was making is that, separate and apart from government
funding, political correctness impedes scientific inquiry.

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that, or what else I can
say.

Jerry

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What do you know that the rest of the world doesnt?
    ... assumption - that sequence similarities necessitate common decent via ... Puny protests over silly "real time" gap arguments do nothing to ... ID theory only suggests that science can detect deliberate manipulation ... Tell that to SETI scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Trying to Falsify a non-scientific theory?
    ... the root of science is actually ... The observational method of research "concerns the planned watching, ... close *genetic* gap between any of the proposed steps in flagellar ... The only thing SETI scientists know ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Trying to Falsify a non-scientific theory?
    ... the root of science is actually ... The observational method of research "concerns the planned watching, ... close *genetic* gap between any of the proposed steps in flagellar ... The only thing SETI scientists know ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: my little essay on the evolution vs. intelligent design case
    ... >> Perhaps because a short definition of evolution isn't all that important ... >> And science is replete with examples of this terminological inexactitude. ... >>> the vast majority of scientists and all the nation's major ... the gap that has recently been exploited by ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)