Slate.com on race and IQ

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

You won't see the bias you confront from inside academia. I didn't but that was 25 years ago and at least an order of magnitude less. Imagine a BA in psychology and you don't meet 2 conservative profs in 4 years. Imagine a poli sci BA that meets none.

Now imagine an associate prof looking to do a little research in the area we are discussing. He's in thick with ideologically hom,ogenous professors, cautious PC administrators and there was this vague idea of tenure someday. What sort of heretical hypothesis is he likely to investigate? Even with tenure, how many will rock the boat?

Investigate Robert Putnam to see just how unPC results are handled. I couild only find this Globe piece but add to it the fact that he did his best to submarine his most recent research. That's what your in with. Boston Globe

[/ QUOTE ]

You still haven't answered my question. What are your sources then if not from academia?

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You won't see the bias you confront from inside academia. I didn't but that was 25 years ago and at least an order of magnitude less. Imagine a BA in psychology and you don't meet 2 conservative profs in 4 years. Imagine a poli sci BA that meets none.

Now imagine an associate prof looking to do a little research in the area we are discussing. He's in thick with ideologically hom,ogenous professors, cautious PC administrators and there was this vague idea of tenure someday. What sort of heretical hypothesis is he likely to investigate? Even with tenure, how many will rock the boat?

Investigate Robert Putnam to see just how unPC results are handled. I couild only find this Globe piece but add to it the fact that he did his best to submarine his most recent research. That's what your in with. Boston Globe

[/ QUOTE ]

You still haven't answered my question. What are your sources then if not from academia?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sources from academia are still of some value, just less than they used to be. Hard leftist ideology gained status
in American colleges in the 70s. Unlike hard science, the research in the squishy science has less weight today than in the past. I discount accordingly.

Read up on Putnam and tell me I've got it wrong. You won't. Cocoon's too fragile.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You won't see the bias you confront from inside academia. I didn't but that was 25 years ago and at least an order of magnitude less. Imagine a BA in psychology and you don't meet 2 conservative profs in 4 years. Imagine a poli sci BA that meets none.

Now imagine an associate prof looking to do a little research in the area we are discussing. He's in thick with ideologically hom,ogenous professors, cautious PC administrators and there was this vague idea of tenure someday. What sort of heretical hypothesis is he likely to investigate? Even with tenure, how many will rock the boat?

Investigate Robert Putnam to see just how unPC results are handled. I couild only find this Globe piece but add to it the fact that he did his best to submarine his most recent research. That's what your in with. Boston Globe

[/ QUOTE ]

You still haven't answered my question. What are your sources then if not from academia?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sources from academia are still of some value, just less than they used to be. Hard leftist ideology gained status
in American colleges in the 70s. Unlike hard science, the research in the squishy science has less weight today than in the past. I discount accordingly.

Read up on Putnam and tell me I've got it wrong. You won't. Cocoon's too fragile.

[/ QUOTE ]

So research is legit just only research from the 30's. Excellent.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

So research is legit just only research from the 30's. Excellent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on Vhawk, you know there is no reason to suspect biased research on race in the 30s.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
So research is legit just only research from the 30's. Excellent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. We must also give great weight to any contemporary research supporting his position, because it bucks the trend and is therefore credible.

Similarly, we must acknowledge that creation scientists are much more likely to be correct than ordinary scientists - they're the ones who have the courage to go against the majority. It hardly matters that most scientists accept evolution - there's so much pressure in academia to accept evolution, how could they not? But even with all that pressure, some brave souls choose to seek the truth instead of worshipping political correctness.

And my friends - they should be applauded. They should be applauded.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So research is legit just only research from the 30's. Excellent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. We must also give great weight to any contemporary research supporting his position, because it bucks the trend and is therefore credible.

Similarly, we must acknowledge that creation scientists are much more likely to be correct than ordinary scientists - they're the ones who have the courage to go against the majority. It hardly matters that most scientists accept evolution - there's so much pressure in academia to accept evolution, how could they not? But even with all that pressure, some brave souls choose to seek the truth instead of worshipping political correctness.

And my friends - they should be applauded. They should be applauded.

[/ QUOTE ]

And accordingly, we must relax our standards when it comes to peer review and legitimate publication, verification and replication of results. I mean, obviously none of the biased journals (all of them LDO) would publish anything contradictory. And no one is going to replicate the experiments at the risk of their careers, or possibly just due to a crippling fear of uncovering the truth.

[kurto]

I like that inthedark doesn't really even bother to try to hide his bias.

If the science/academia/whatever reinforces his conservative ideology, then it probably has some value.

If the conclusion of an academic journal disagrees with his political wishes, then it should be discounted.

Its like Bush in 2000 who discounted any science which agreed with global warming. Oddly enough, he now apparently agrees with the science that he dismissed previously because he didn't like it politically.

InTheDark-- you will continue to appear as just a ridiculous partisan since you discount any sources which disagree with your politics.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Sources from academia are still of some value, just less than they used to be. Hard leftist ideology gained status
in American colleges in the 70s. Unlike hard science, the research in the squishy science has less weight today than in the past. I discount accordingly.

Read up on Putnam and tell me I've got it wrong. You won't. Cocoon's too fragile.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't get it. What are your sources then? You keep saying academic sources are tainted, skewed, and flawed. So where else do you get your information?

[madnak]

He cherry-picks. There's nothing more to it than that. Just as some social scientists cherry-pick their data to support the idea that everyone is equal, ITD cherry-picks his information to support the idea that races aren't equal. He should take a page from Phil, who almost has me convinced, instead of going on about academic conspiracies.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
He cherry-picks. There's nothing more to it than that. Just as some social scientists cherry-pick their data to support the idea that everyone is equal, ITD cherry-picks his information to support the idea that races aren't equal. He should take a page from Phil, who almost has me convinced, instead of going on about academic conspiracies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really just want to hear him say it. The problem is that it will ruin his argument because he basically said academic sources are worthless. I said that I have training in this area, so I trust my reading of the journals more than his. He claimed the problem was the journals themselves.