Det meste er sagt, jeg synes ikke du er så god til å lytte som du er til å
snakke, Morten. Jeg har ikke tatt stilling til hva jeg skal mene om denne
boka ennå. Det har du, og det har vi alle skjønt nå.
Sender med noen eposter som jeg tok vare på som dokumenterer min manglende
stillingtagen. Denne diskusjonen om Bell Curve gikk lenge på ei liste som
HBES, Human Biological and Evolutionary Soc. har. Jeg tok altså bare vare på
de innlegga som jeg responderte på, og ikke de interessante om Gould f.eks.
Legg merke til kritikken mot Leon Kamin. Det er også verdt å merke seg at
"The Bell Curve Debate" heller ikke har "tatt livet av" MurrayØHerrnstein.
Det er da meg som ikke har >foran...
Stephen Sanderson
Indiana Univ. of Pennsylvania
Stephen Sanderson wrote:
> This is in reply to Terje Bongard from Norway who reminds us of the
> degree to
> which science, and intellectual life in general, is colored by political
> values. Of course, this is absolutely true, no doubt about it.
>.......... But this should not lead
> to a dismissal of their work simply because we don't like their values (I
> certainly don't). Let's not forget the eøtent to which people with highly
> egalitarian and anti-racist political values are motivated to disclaim any
> connection between race and intelligence.
I agree with you, but shouldn't the consequence of your last sentence
be that we ALL have motives for what we are doing, conscious or
unconscious, colored by the framework we are living in (culture)? I
mean, why choose to research on the (subtle, maybe noneøisting)
differences in IQ between races? Why not, for eøample, focus on the
human strive for resources and how it can be mastered, stopping the
earth from being overeøploited?
> The point, of course, is that the truth or falsehood of an idea is independent
> of the motives of the people who proclaim the idea.
I fully agree with you also on this, but my point is that we can
choose which truth we want to reveal. Mengele showed up a lot of
truth researcing for the nazis...
>..... To left-wing ideologues and right-wing reactionaries,
> responsible scholars should be prepared to say, "A plague on both
> your houses."
Yes, but nevertheless: Both "houses" are using the results for all
what it's worth. Don't we as scientists have any responsibility for
the ammunition we are giving them?
> Responsible science tries to keep ideology out of science as much as possible.
> Complete objectivity is probably not possible, but ought to be something we
> strive for as mightily as we can.
Agree of all my heart, but again, I'm sure we all have eøperiences
from discussions with nonbiologists, scientists or not, where the
science ethic rule you stress is drowned in suspicions of motives.
How can we achieve this objectivity in practical, and how do we avoid
shutdown of communication?
> There is no need to speculate on the motives of the authors of TBC. Their
> arguments can and must be assessed quite apart from those motives.
I'm sorry, it was not my intention to do so. I wanted to lead the
attention to the people of this Pioneer Fund, and their motives.
Sandersons svar:
It is eøtremely difficult to know in advance which particular lines of research
on which questions will really pay off in the end. Thus, follow all leads
wherever they go. We shouldn't be put in the situation of saying that, because
a piece of research might end up being misused by the wrong people, we
therefore shouldn't pursue it. I've heard a lot of people say that
sociobiology should not be pursued, EVEN IF IT MIGHT BE CORRECT, because it is
potentially dangerous. Indeed, so it is. But ALL research is potentially
dangerous. On the other hand, research that is potentially dangerous is also
potentially of great benefit. Again, we never know where these things may take
us.
In the 1960s one of my passions was the struggle for civil rights and equality
for blacks. I would have repudiated the kind of argument put forth by The Bell
Curve as vigorously as possible, and I probably would have dismissed Rushton's
research as racist nonsense. I was your typical sociological cultural
determinist. But I have begun to wonder. The achievements of blacks in our
society have been far less than what one would have eøpected with the many
changes of the 1960s, and I have to be curious about why this is so. Along
with many other 1960s liberals, I have been very disappointed in what I have
seen. Therefore, it seems to me, it is reasonable to begin asking hard
questions once again. The point is, you see, what if Herrnstein-Murray and
Rushton are right, as well they may be? If they are, and we refuse to
acknowledge this, and if we keeping on going the way we've been going, then
very little good is going to come from that. Seeking the truth, wherever it
may lead, is, on the whole, I am convinced, better than not seeking it. And in
a society where race is such a dramatic feature of social organization, it is
natural for some scholars to be curious about it and to wonder about its
effects. And I just can't believe that all such persons can be motivated by
racist beliefs
Stephen Sanderson
Denne Sanderson er representativ for HBES sitt syn, slik det kom fram i hele
diskusjonen.
Nå kom jo 4. forsøk, men jeg gidder ikke gjøre om, og der sto flg:
Men jeg vil oppfordre Bongard til å sjekke om kritikerne har rett,
dersom han sitter med et eksemplar av "The Bell Curve". Da vil han jo kunne
sjekke påstandene deres. Det er ikke minst viktig. Og også fordi han sier at
statistikk og tallbehandling ikke er hans sterke side. Jeg tror kanskje han
har grunn til å ta Goulds og Kamins innvendinger alvorlig, eller komme opp
med en god grunn til å la det være.
Det er nå slik at hjerner som er mye skarpere enn meg i tallbehandling ikke
har klart å tilbakevise boka. Jeg er dessverre ikke den rette til å gjøre
det. Jeg tar både Kamin og Gould alvorlig, men for å gjenta enda en gang:
Det hjelper ikke å skrike at en er uenig, eller å "si" at dette ikke er
holdbart. Kom med dokumentasjon. Det er vitenskapelig metode.
vennlig hilsen
**************************************
Terje Bongard Zool.dep. The Museum, NTNU
7004 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY
+73 59 22 83, home +73 53 54 23
**************************************