Re: Race Thread

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: David DeGusta: "Re: Science, Psuedoscience, and Social "Science""
• Previous message: John Ford: "Rushton, race and selling books"
• Maybe in reply to: Rob Quinlan: "Race Thread"

>Second, I think it was David Degusta that mentioned that we seem to be holding
>Rushton to a different standard of evidence. This seems true, but we also hold
>medical trials of new medicines to a different standard of evidence too.
>That's because of the potential for harm.
>Rob Quinlan, Grad. Student, Dept. of Anthropology, U. of Missouri-Columbia
>C611417@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU
Sorry to bug the whole list with this, but I want to make sure the
record is clear regarding my view of Rushton's ideas. I was very explicit
that I thought it was GOOD that we held Rushton to a very strict standard;
I agree with the above quote. I just wished we would ALSO be equally
critical of hypotheses we like the sound of. Like I said in my original
message: "Not that we should let Rushton off easy, but that we should be
more rigorous even with hypotheses that we tend to empirically agree with."

David DeGusta
Department of Anthropology
University of California, Berkeley

• Next message: David DeGusta: "Re: Science, Psuedoscience, and Social "Science""
• Previous message: John Ford: "Rushton, race and selling books"
• Maybe in reply to: Rob Quinlan: "Race Thread"