Re: BELL CURVE CRITIC EXPOSED?
David A. Johns (djohns@grove.ufl.edu)
26 Jan 1995 10:10:11 GMT
In article <3g1ti5$h5e@agate.berkeley.edu> <jerrybro@uclink2.berkeley.edu> writes:
# turtom@cortez.its.rpi.edu (Michael Andrew Turton) wrote:
#
# > Getting back to TBC, Tom, perhaps you can provide a
# > definitions of "race" "intelligence" and other words Murray
# > flings around.
#
# The book defines IQ as being what IQ scores measure. The
# question is not whether IQ exists, but whether it is a useful
# quantity, i.e., what sorts of things it predicts. The
# "existence" of any quantity is established through its
# usefulness. We can predict many things from the weight of an
# object; therefore, its weight is a real and important quantity.
Why are you talking about IQ? Tom asked you to define *intelligence*.
# "Race" is a taxonomic concept. Taxonomists classify subspecies;
# I don't see why it is illegitimate to talk about race.
Someone else has already pointed out that some animal populations
cover so much area that individuals at opposite ends might even be
considered different *species*. But unless I'm mistaken, no biologist
would ever claim to be able to draw the line between those two
species.
If you want to talk about human variation, that's fine. If you want
to sort people into categories, you've got trouble.
David Johns
|