Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Quizkajer (talk | contribs) at 07:18, 4 August 2005 (→Race and intelligence controversy?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

not an experiment

this is not an experiment. rather, it is a collaborative writing effort between a group of relatively slow writers. more text is coming soon... --Rikurzhen 03:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

WP examples

I pulled the starting material for this article from the example of Global warming controversy. --Rikurzhen 03:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

a list of examples --Rikurzhen 21:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• science
  • Global warming and Global warming controversy
  • Evolution and Creation-evolution controversy
  • Psychiatry and Anti-psychiatry
  • Vaccine and Vaccine controversy
  • Autism and Controversies in autism
• culture
  • Fahrenheit 9/11 and Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy
  • Scientology and Scientology controversy
• history
  • Moon landing and Apollo moon landing hoax accusations
  • The Holocaust and Holocaust denial

sources

• The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy by Mark Snyderman, Stanley Rothman

Is EncBib a source?

And we use a tertiary source? The articles about Race in Encyclopeda Britannica would be a good source for what-we-could-call the anthropology POV. Here, just to give you a taster, is the first paragraph of one of the sections:

The scientific debate over “race”

Although their numbers are dwindling, some scientists continue to believe that it is possible to divide Homo sapiens into discrete populations called races. They believe that the physical differences manifest in wide geographic regions are more than superficial; they reflect innate intellectual, moral, emotional, and other behavioral differences among human groups. They deny that social circumstances and the cultural realities of racism have any affect on behaviour or the performance of children and adults on IQ tests.

It goes on like that. A veritable goldmine of well-presented viewpoints held by anthropologists and a large section of academia. Unfortuntately, EncBib is poorly sourced, I would prefer to be able to point to the primary and secondary sources that the author (Audrey Smedley, author of Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview) uses for her overview. But maybe we could use something like that for the overview of public opinion and media portrayal? (We still need any source for what the unwashed masses think.)

What I'm not sure about is if a tertiary source like WP should write about another tertiary source like EB. I think not. Arbor 13:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Our own race article should have something to describe the anthropologists view(s). Slrubinstein and I were pretty thorough with that article. --Rikurzhen 13:33, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

btw, if we're looking for an example of a straw man applied to IQ researchers, that's a good one. --Rikurzhen 14:10, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Gould criticism

Here's what we have about Gould:

has been accused of "scholarly malfeasance," (Rushton (1996)), tainting his research with a Marxist bias (Gasper (2002), and presenting misleading statistics.

We cannot refer to Gasper for "accusing Gould of marxist bias", which is what we are doing here, at least implicitly. If anything, Gasper extols Gould for his marxist bias, in any case we are misrepresenting his views. From the top of my head, Pinker has something in Blank Slate that we might use instead, but I need to check. Arbor 10:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll look for some: --Rikurzhen 17:01, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• A 1982 review of MMoM in Nature said it sounded like a "Radio Moscow" broadcast.
• A book review of MMoM in American Journal of Psychology by Lloyd Humphreys pp. 407-415. (1982?) gives us "Marxism" and "Marxist" in a section called "Gould's biases". It is definitely not flattery: "Gould is not himself an objective scientist".

working space

Talk:Race and intelligence controversy/temp

divergence of text

i'm fixing text divergence and as I get the two versions put together I'm deleting the second version. see the last few comments at Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Summary_style_-_Race_and_intelligence_controversy for more details. --Rikurzhen 08:02, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

we still need to reconcile the "Accusations of systematic misrepresentations and the Pioneer Fund" text, which seems to have been rearranged a lot after the split. --Rikurzhen 08:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who cleaned up that section (when it was at race and intelligence). The largest difference between the two versions is that the second (the older version) discusses the Pioneer Fund before discussing the broader issue, accusations of systematic representation. I also cleaned up the presentation of the criticism of the fund. For example, critics often present the distributed film as a nazi film, when it was more accurately a film promoting eugenics (popular at the time in most developed nations), produced by the early (pre-war) Nazi party. I'm deleting the old version, as the revisions weren't contested when they were made. (Please revert if there are still concerns) --Nectarflowed 15:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this is fine. The first (and newer) version is clearly superior and has a much broader perspective. In this form, parts of the argument might warrant inclusion on the Race and intelligence page itself, which might be concordant with the wishes expressed by Ultramarine on the talk page of R&I. I would prefer it to appear in the 3-paragraph summary of this page, but Ultramarine seems to be strongly opposed to that for reasons I still fail to comprehend. I am confident we can work it out sooner or later. For now, thank you for getting this editing problem out of the world. Arbor 15:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Systematic misrepresentations

Now we can focus on the sources for that.

• The footnote called "Rusthon" points to

  Joseph L Graves, "What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory," Anthropological Theory 2, no. 2 (2002): 131–54; Leonard Lieberman, "How 'Caucasoids' got such big crania and why they shrank. From Morton to Rushton.," Current Anthropology 42, no. 1 (February 2001): 69–95; Zack Cernovsky, "On the similarities of American blacks and whites: A reply to J.P. Rushton," Journal of Black Studies 25 (1995): 672.

All all three necessary? Which one includes the porn and Penthouse references? Is this really a good summary of the scholarly malfeasance that Rushton is criticised for? I would prefer just a single references, instead of 3 that say the same.

• Ditto for Gould. I would like a single reference that criticises Gould. Should be easy enough. The Gasper (2002) reference I already discounted (see above), and the "Goosed-up graphics" is also not so good, since it attacks an argument that doesn't really have anything to do with Gould's position qua race and intelligence research.
• The "Pioneer Film" footnote has not reference at all and is just dangling in the air. Arbor 15:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Race and intelligence controversy?

The title is pov and factually incorrect. There are many other controversies in other articles, like in Race and intelligence (Culture-only or partially-genetic explanation) Ultramarine 16:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Until you deleted most of the content which discussed it, we talked about that controversy as well. An article title should be a singular noun. Certainly there is more than one controversial thing about the creation-evolution controversy. The concept of a controversy article is a well establish precedent. What exactly are you objecting to? --Rikurzhen 16:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

As noted, there are other controversies in other articles in this area. The title should be changed, maybe to Race and intelligence public controversy. Ultramarine 16:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I weakly support Ultramarine's suggestion. Race and intelligence (public controversy) or Public controversy over race and intelligence are fine by me. That would make it clear that the scientific controversy is something else. (Also, the section heading in Race and intelligence is Public controversy. . Arbor 16:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

So you don't dispute the content of the article (essentially) or the need for an article on this subject (approximately)? At first blush that sounds very reasonable to me. It seems very much like the point I was trying to get across to Jokestress that there needs to be a distinction between exactly what is controversial and who is on what side of the debate. I'll probably be busy most of the day. Hopefully someone else will chime in. --Rikurzhen 16:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

No. But as noted earlier, the systematic and very large scale funding of one view from a questionable source has implications larger than just public controversy. Ultramarine 16:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay... I really do need to go... then move that section from here to a sub-section of the background article and see if we can fix the referencing problems Arbor mentioned. Also, let's change the title on this article. There may be objections from Jokestress, who seems to think that the public controversy is the heart of this topic rather than the research results. --Rikurzhen 16:57, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Based on my limited knowledge of this topic, the attempt to do scientific research on correlations between "race" and "intelligence," especially based on psychometric and hereditarian hypotheses, IS the controversy. Further, that is not the only controversy. Even among those researchers who forge ahead despite the overarching issues argue about several things, such as definiting "race," defining "intelligence," the validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence, the reasons IQ scores might differ among groups, and whether any meaningful interpretation can be limned from the existing data.

So maybe race and intelligence controversies (my recommendation, has precedent on WP) can expand on the "main" page's summary of these issues. I am not keen on this public/scientific split of the controversies. Presenting any data needs to be done with the acknowledgement of the issues raised. Each article must be a stand-alone, meaning that if a read read only that article, there would at least be a link to more info on the central issues. Jokestress 06:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I think Ultramarine's point, which is not unreasonable IMHO, is that there is already an entire sub-article dedicated to the between group heritability question (or controversy if you prefer), so repeating that here would be redundant. That still leaves quite a bit of controversy to be discussed here, and most of that controversy is aimed for public consumption. You are probably right that the genetics question is the most controversial, but that is in part because people confuse heritability with maleability. They are logically distinct considerations. Indeed, what WP is currently missing is a robust discussion of the maleability of IQ, which we could mention somewhere in this article series. --Rikurzhen 07:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)