|
|
More Re: RushtonAndy Skreija (skreija@CWIS.UNOMAHA.EDU)Thu, 20 Oct 1994 09:54:02 -0500
ideas and have been moved to add my mickle pickle, or perhaps 1/2 cent's worth: 1) Regarding canons of proof. I submit that yes different types of statements have to be held to different levels of proof. If I were to claim that in a certain population people have two arms and legs and one head, I probably should not have to claim that I examined hundreds of individuals and that the coeficient of correlation was 1. Nor is it likely that many people would be interested in examining my research procedures, data, statistics etc. Whereas if I claimed that a particular population is telepathic I should be prepared to have my research design, procedures, data, statistics and math scrutinized and have a high N. 2) Race. a) Biologically, the problem is that people are trying to use an European folk category as if it were a scientific one. My understanding is that the biologists, after years of wrestling with the issue, gave up trying to define sub-specific categories. To me this is one of those G.I.G.O. cases! b) Culturally and socially in the US it has reality. It is essentially treated as a synonym for caste, i.e., race = caste. And it has social reality. A recent example documenting this is last Sunday's "Frontline" on Berkely HI. 3) Rushton specifically. I am always benused that when people examine an emotionally charged issue where the result implies some advantage it seems that the results almost invarialby is that they belong to the superior or advantaged group. One example is human origin myths or legends in some Native American cultures where some supernatural being was making humans and the first batch was underdone = whites, the next batch was just right = Native Americans (or the teller's group), etc. Another example is the original homeland of the Indo Europeans which seems to relocate itself into the researcher's homeland. Remember, the ancient Greeks thought N. Europeans were too stupid to even make good slaves!
|