Proponents of environmental theories of group differences regularly...
Crémieux@cremieuxrecueil
54 views
Jun 29, 2024
~2 min read
1
Proponents of environmental theories of group differences regularly treat open sharing of code and data like their biggest fear
A session at the Behavior Genetics Assn. meeting today included the argument that hereditarians have weaponized transparency (i.e., doing good science)
A session at the Behavior Genetics Assn. meeting today included the argument that hereditarians have weaponized transparency (i.e., doing good science)
2
It has always been true that hereditarians have been more into doing science correctly, because they are generally the sorts of people who want to know if they're right, so they demand tests.
3
Their opponents, on the other hand, promote ignorance, make incoherent arguments, and mislead, with intent. People like Kamin and Lewontin used to be open about misleading others. People like Turkheimer now simply act like scientific discovery is impossible, without real reason.
4
Science is, to them, political, so why not?
Because we want to know things, of course. Because knowledge is always better than ignorance, of course. Because the knowledge we can gain is important, of course.
Because we want to know things, of course. Because knowledge is always better than ignorance, of course. Because the knowledge we can gain is important, of course.
5
Hereditarians are always stuck in the position of writing the proposals and offering the assurances and doing the work to move things forward, and the environmentalists always want to set up barriers
Consider @charlesmurray's attempt to make a sort of 'bipartisan' discovery team
Consider @charlesmurray's attempt to make a sort of 'bipartisan' discovery team
6
@charlesmurray In 2005, Murray posted on the "Evolutionary Psychology" Yahoo discussion group that he emailed scholars on both sides of the "race/IQ" debate.
He wanted everyone to agree to a definitive test.
The hereditarians all agreed.
The environmentalists said no, and wouldn't agree.
He wanted everyone to agree to a definitive test.
The hereditarians all agreed.
The environmentalists said no, and wouldn't agree.
7
@charlesmurray In more recent years, the enemies of honesty, open science, etc., have not just refused to get on board with an effort from both sides to solve issues, they've barred anyone looking.
In 2022, James Lee wrote about this in @CityJournal:
In 2022, James Lee wrote about this in @CityJournal:
8
@charlesmurray @CityJournal The whole thing is embarrassing.
Hereditarians repeatedly call for more openness, more data, more tests, and more collaboration across the aisle, and their opponents refuse to stop being opponents; they refuse to make the work they critique better, more credible, more acceptable
Hereditarians repeatedly call for more openness, more data, more tests, and more collaboration across the aisle, and their opponents refuse to stop being opponents; they refuse to make the work they critique better, more credible, more acceptable
9
@charlesmurray @CityJournal And so here we are:
Hereditarians are likely correct about genetic contributions to group differences, but they're reviled.
The evidence has gotten stronger, and their support has grown weaker
Now professional associations even support calls to make science a closed enterprise
Hereditarians are likely correct about genetic contributions to group differences, but they're reviled.
The evidence has gotten stronger, and their support has grown weaker
Now professional associations even support calls to make science a closed enterprise
10
@charlesmurray @CityJournal We're all worse off for it now, and we'll continue to be worse off for it into the foreseeable future.
Links:
archive.md/PJ7rz
city-journal.org/article/dont-e…
Links:
archive.md/PJ7rz
city-journal.org/article/dont-e…