• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Protesters Disrupt Speech by ‘Bell Curve’ Author at Vermont College

Infinite Chaos said:
OK, I'm moved from indifference to boredom here.

He's cornered me by setting up a strawman argument that I never used (Gould on Morten)?

I was done with this foolish thread and discussion but keep being quoted back. Let me make it clear what I said previously - Gould among others looked at Murray and Herrnstein's work. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers (not just Gould's book) which point out Lynn's failings and pseudoscientific approach to data recording.

I accept mbig has surfed the web far longer than I, scouring for any kooky theory that supports his self belief his is the most intelligent poster or person he knows. I have no desire to disabuse him of it. It's actually funny knowing you two are probably only swayed by having bought a charlatan's book and now feel defensive about the fake science within and will defend it with your lives.

Now, goodbye agin. I leave you two to your last claims of victory.
Click to expand...

And yet the takedown of Gould was in a reputable journal.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
What next? You going to cite Phrenology to support your cause?
Click to expand...
This is of course, a strawman and deflection.
Bell Curve isn't arguing phrenology either.
!
This is a common leftist tactic. To try/smear by association anyone who looks into physical differences between human groups.
My much cited Coyne. Perhaps the world's foremost expert on Evolution, Genetics, 'Speciation,' and author of the standard text of the latter name.
Credentials/full article here:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/scie...3-pseudo-science-racism-5.html#post1064578504
One of the touchiest subjects in human evolutionary biology —or human biology in general — is the question of whether there are human races. Back in the bad old days, it was taken for granted that the answer was not only “yes,” but that there was a ranking of races (invariably done by white biologists), with Caucasians on top, Asians a bit lower, and blacks invariably on the bottom. The sad history of biologically based racism has been documented in many places, including Steve Gould’s book The Mismeasure of Man (yes, I know it’s flawed).

But from that sordid scientific past has come a backlash:
the subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become Taboo. And this Despite the Palpable morphological Differences between human groups — differences that MUST be based on Genetic Differences and WOULD, if seen in OTHER species, lead to their classification as either Races or Subspecies (the terms are pretty interchangeable in biology). Racial delimitation could, critics say, lead to a resurgence of racism, racial profiling, or even eugenics.
[......]
Click to expand...

Gould, was dishonestly cheating in his attempt to equalize Unequal human skull difference... which might be the basis for Race/Race-and-IQ difference. In fact, it is one of the few factors so far identified as part of IQ.

And Craniometry/Craniology is NOT the same a phrenology though they can overlap.
Phrenology focused more on bumps/areas that capacity. It is 'discredited' overall for now, but since it's early usage we HAVE certainly identified areas of the brains with certain functions.

Cont'd
 
Last edited:
Cont'd
Craniometry.
Craniometry is measurement of the cranium (the main part of the skull), usually the human cranium. It is a subset of cephalometry, measurement of the head, which in humans is a subset of anthropometry, measurement of the human body. It is distinct from phrenology...
Click to expand...
ooops

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crani..._races_and_19th-20th_century_scientific_ideas
Cranial capacity, races and 19th-20th century scientific ideas

Samuel George Morton (1799–1851), one of the inspirers of physical anthropology, collected hundreds of human skulls from all over the world and started trying to find a way to classify them according to some logical criterion. Influenced by the common theories of his time, he claimed that he could judge the intellectual capacity of a race by the cranial capacity (the measure of the volume of the interior of the skull).
....
Morton claimed that he could judge the intellectual capacity of a race by the skull size....
Based on craniometry data, Morton claimed in Crania Americana that the Caucasians had the biggest brains, averaging 87 cubic inches, Indians were in the middle with an average of 82 cubic inches and Negroes had the smallest brains with an average of 78 cubic inches.[4]
Click to expand...
Jack Hays said:
And yet the takedown of Gould was in a reputable journal.
Click to expand...
TWICE
Stephen Jay Gould, an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science, studied these craniometric works in The Mismeasure of Man (1981) and claimed Samuel Morton had fudged data and "overpacked" the skulls with filler in order to justify his preconceived notions on racial differences. A subsequent study by the anthropologist John Michael found Morton's original data to be more accurate than Gould describes, concluding that "[c]ontrary to Gould's interpretation... Morton's research was conducted with integrity."

(mbig: My study previously linked)
In 2011, physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania, which owns Morton’s collection, published a study that concluded that almost every detail of Gould’s analysis was wrong and that “Morton did not manipulate his data to support his preconceptions, contra Gould.” They identified and remeasured half of the skulls used in Morton’s reports, finding that in only 2% of cases did Morton’s measurements differ significantly from their own and that these errors either were random or gave a larger than accurate volume to African skulls, the reverse of the bias that Dr. Gould imputed to Morton.
Click to expand...
So Morton had right for race/skull size
We now have a (not all) basis for Race difference in IQ.
And Morton was Not alone. cont'd
J. Philippe Rushton, psychologist and author of the controversial work Race, Evolution and Behavior, reanalyzed Gould's retabulation in 1989, and argued that Samuel Morton, in his 1839 book Crania Americana, had shown a pattern of decreasing brain size proceeding from East Asians, Europeans, and Africans.

In his 1995 book Race, Evolution, and Behavior, he alleged an average endocranial volume of 1,364 cm for East Asians, 1,347 for white caucasians and 1,268 for black Africans.
Other similar claims were previously made by Ho et al (1980), who measured 1,261 brains at autopsy, and Beals et al. (1984), who measured approximately 20,000 skulls, finding the same East Asian → European → African pattern....
Click to expand...
So there are Skull size differences.
and Hark!, Corresponding IQ Differences.

Now we have the physical underpinning of what is Common Knowledge, if unhappily so.

But Bell Curve's facts were well know to IQ researchers, and still are despite the whines of 'social scientists', and Don't even depend on cranial volume as much a simple statistical truths which exist despite all socio-economic and other factors.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
And yet the takedown of Gould was in a reputable journal.
Click to expand...

So, did that takedown show that the other researchers I mentioned were disproved? Did that takedown mean that Flynn's findings were wrong?

mbig set up a straw man by showing Gould was wrong on Morton to somehow prove that all the others I mentioned were wrong. You two just don't get it because you have emotional and financial investment in buying and supporting Murray.

Just stop quoting me and leave me to your nasty little theories.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
So, did that takedown show that the other researchers I mentioned were disproved? Did that takedown mean that Flynn's findings were wrong?

mbig set up a straw man by showing Gould was wrong on Morton to somehow prove that all the others I mentioned were wrong. You two just don't get it because you have emotional and financial investment in buying and supporting Murray.

Just stop quoting me and leave me to your nasty little theories.
Click to expand...

It meant that your citation was not conclusive. I have my own issues with Murray; you assume too much, as seems to be your habit. I just don't think his view is out of bounds for intellectual discourse.
 
Jack Hays said:
It meant that your citation was not conclusive ~
Click to expand...

Sez you. Now a reminder, please stop quoting me. I leave this nasty little subject to you and mbig, we have just had a terror attack here in London. My thoughts are elsewhere.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Sez you. Now a reminder, please stop quoting me. I leave this nasty little subject to you and mbig, we have just had a terror attack here in London. My thoughts are elsewhere.
Click to expand...

As you wish. You, the victims and all in Britain are in my thoughts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom