Re: nbc Jeff Jacoby on the looters nbc


"Ukes" <duke_of_diddly@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9589i1lch09n6nedljskrmmfss4m6par83@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:26:30 -0500, "Gumboman" <noemail@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>

<snip previous remarks>

>
> So what? That has nothing to do with the point that Joe made (that
> political correctness shouldn't impede scientific study)


Political correctness (as it is called today) has always, and will always,
impede many things, not just scientific research.



> 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.


I don't dispute this and never thought otherwise. What I said was it doesn't
bother me. If you and Joe want something studied go do it. Those folks have
a right to make their own decisions. Eventually, those things worthy of
study get studied. Not every person who has spent the past 8 or 10 years
getting a doctorate wants to get embroiled in controversy. Some of them just
want to make a little money, get laid, buy a house, pay back student loans,
etc. They've earned that right.



> 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?


If something is actually worthy not everyone will avoid the subject forever.
There will always be someone that comes along that wants to make a name for
him/her self. If the subject is worthy of study the money and the people
will ultimately be there.


>
> 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.


Those authors can do anything they wish. They weren't telling me anything I
didn't already know.


<snip>

>
> 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.


You don't have to google very long to find out there are more than a few
people who disagree not only with Jensen, but also his methodology.
Shouldn't this have been mentioned in your remarks?


>
> If you want sources, here are some :
>
>

<snip>


Thanks for the links but you didn't have to go to that much trouble.


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


Yes, but how do you conduct an experiment in 'intelligence'. Let's assume
it's genetic. Genetics are a function of evolution. In order for Jensen to
conclusively prove his thesis wouldn't you have to put a group of similar
humans in a 'test' room and let evolution take its course over time. Don't
you have to set up the experiment so as to factor out any environmental
influences? These are only a couple of things I can think of off the top of
my head. The fact of the matter is although you may find Jensen's work
intriging a lot of people thought he was a quack, did they not?



>
>>> 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.


I haven't ignored anything. I guess I assumed it was common knowledge.



> Who is going to produce more knowledge concerning a subject: (1) five
> scientists; or (2) those same five scientists plus twenty more
> scientists?


If there is a 'name' to be made or 'money' to be made there will be plenty
of scientists available to study a particular idea. Did it ever occur to you
that more scientists didn't follow in Jensen's footsteps because they didn't
find his research as convincing as you seem to find it?



>
> 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.
>


Of course it threatens those women - it also happens every day. There are
plenty of doctors who won't/don't perform abortions because they don't want
the controversy. All I'm saying is if I spent 8 years going through medical
school so I could make a lot of money (and let's face it, that's the main
reason folks go into medicine) then I may not want to jeopardize that by
doing abortions. Eight years is a long time and I didn't make that
sacrifice. I'm not sure I want to tell those that did how they should live
their lives - that's all I'm saying.



>
>>
>>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."


Joe is wrong - politics has always influenced scientific study to some
extent, especially government funded research. That's not going to change
anytime soon. Any other type of research can be conducted by the private
sector and if someone finds it valid and wants to fund it then the research
will be conducted. It seems to me that you are trying to make the case that
any type of 'quack' research anyone finds interesting should be funded and
that hordes of scientists should be on the problem. It's never been that way
and it's not going to be that way in the future.




> 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).


You can have the last word. I was just making a general statement and I'll
go back and read the original article but I didn't see anything in there on
first reading that I found to be a surprise - that's really all I'm saying.
Maybe you found the article significant - I simply didn't.


>
> 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.
>

OK - I'll make it clear and then bow out. You can have the last word.
Jensen's research (and I'm only using him because you've made him the one
example to form your opinion), as far as I can tell, can't lead one to the
conclusions he's making. There looks to be two distinct variables involved,
genetics and environment. Unless you can find a way to hold one variable
constant while studying the dynamic effects of the second variable then I
don't think you can come to the same conclusions Jensen is making. If you
think about it a minute it would be very difficult to conduct this type of
experiment so Jensen has attempted to form a conclusion based on a static
sample as he finds it at a particular moment in time. I personally don't
think this is a valid experiment but that is just my personal opinion.
Apparently a lot of young scientists coming up have passed on his research
also. Maybe that's not because of poltical correctness but because they find
the same flaws in his approach that I found.



JH





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why should average Joe trust scientists?
    ... them by scientists. ... Does creationists being alleged dumbsh8ts give license to everybody ... If science is the best methodology for trying to discover new things ... Why should Joe believe that? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Kurt Vonnegut endorses ID on NPR
    ... >Joe Blow wrote: ... >>> Scientists are a tribe. ... As far as Mr Vonnegut ... No, it's life, specifically *our* bodies, that he rejects natural selection ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: nbc Jeff Jacoby on the looters nbc
    ... > political correctness bullshit from the right or left. ... to some extent today is large corporations are financing studies that fit ... As I understand the situation scientists that deal in biology, genetics, ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: nbc Jeff Jacoby on the looters nbc
    ... >> political correctness bullshit from the right or left. ... > this country to some extent today is large corporations are financing ... > As I understand the situation scientists that deal in biology, genetics, ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: Why should average Joe trust scientists?
    ... Just like the mutual fund example, one cannot know if they have ... Why should scientists consider evidence they *don't* find? ... My point is that Joe may not know or be able to know what evidence ...
    (talk.origins)