Re: The Bell Curve del 2.
Terje Bongard (terje.bongard@vm.ntnu.no)
Mon, 03 Feb 1997 13:25:20 +0100
Beklager ,denne skulle også vært med:
>
>Joseph Carroll responding to Terje Bongard's statement that "the suggestions
>in TBC should have been proven beyond any doubt before published, taken into
>consideration the enormous impact such claims have on millions of people."
>If this criterion were applied across the board to social science, most
>of which has significance for millions of people, virtually everyone on
>this list would be out of a job, and all of their publications would
>have been suppressed. Evolutionary theory with respect to human behavior
>is still in a highly speculative phase. The measure of good work in such
>a phase cannot be that of absolute proof. The measure can only be that of
>circumspection, thoroughness, and reasonableness in discussing the data and
>considering probability. Since Bongard would presumably not wish to ban all
>social science, this kind of claim is simply one more disguised way to prohibit
>all discussion of racial and individual differences--political fear masking
>itself as scientific rigor.
> Leon Kamin's review of *The Bell Curve* in *Scientific American* can be
>added to the now very large collection of responses that fall within the
>range of ideology hiding behind spurious claims of scientific rigor. Kamin
>speaks as if Murray/Herrnstein had not even considered the problems of
>determining whether IQ is a product of early environmental influence, and
>nowhere does he even mention the one main source of evidence on this matter:
>the study of twins, especially identical twins reared apart. It is quite
>true, as Bongard says, that politics can enter into and distort science.
>One good way to assess whether this is happening is to determine whether
>the writer in question is intentionally suppressing evidence contrary to
>his or her hypotheses. In contrast apparently to a great many people who
>have reviewed and commented on *The Bell Curve*, I have in fact read the book,
>and it is my strong impression that Murray and Herrnstein are more responsible
>and circumspect in handling the evidence than most of their critics are.
>Any criticism that tries smearing by association with the Pioneer Fund rather
>than considering the substance of their arguments--and rather than honestly
>acknowleding the degree to which they have already assessed evidence that
>seems to conflict with or qualify their conclusions--can be dismissed as
>beneath the level of serious and responsible discussion.
> Joseph Carroll
>
**************************************
Terje Bongard Zool.dep. The Museum, NTNU
7004 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY
+73 59 22 83, home +73 53 54 23
**********************************