Re: Lieber's review

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Jim Chisholm: "race and IQ"
• Previous message: Read, Dwight ANTHRO: "Lieber's review"

>
> Mike is alarmed that "the most obvious and important scientific ideas get lost"
> I agree. Hence my reposting of a Rushton critique by Steve Gangestad from the
> HBES-l, where Rushton's ideas have been rejected by scientific logic and
> evidence rather than politically correct assertions.
>
> identify the real weaknesses in the race-IQ hypothesis rather than spooning
> out politically correct nonsense that causes other disciplines to tune us out.
>
> Mark Flinn

I fully endorse the substance of Mark's posting. It is measured and
logical, for the most part. However, these snide allusions to "political
correctness" really bother me.
If your complaint was on an overemotional misuse of anthr jargon, ok, I
can agree. But once you call zealousness "political correctness", I read
the same ideologically loaded goals in the words as you accuse Mike of.
The term has been appropriated so successfully by conservative
demagogues (a loaded term itself, eh?), its use tends to shed more heat
than light.

Cliff Sloane

• Next message: Jim Chisholm: "race and IQ"
• Previous message: Read, Dwight ANTHRO: "Lieber's review"