Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

VSM1951AG t1_iu7id2q wrote

This is a matter of science, not politics or what’s temporarily popular.

If this guy’s ideas are incorrect—and I don’t know enough about them to weigh in one way or another—then they are incorrect because the data of observation does not support his hypothesis, not because some people or groups find his ideas scandalous or inconvenient.

It’s a very dangerous thing to say that some ideas may never be raised, hypothesized, experimented, researched, talked about or written about. Just like with faith, we should question everything. That which is true will stand the test of close scrutiny. The scientific method is sufficient to handle any ideas that may come its way. Those who would attempt to censor, shout-down, disbar, or terminate people for asking questions and doing science are no friend to science.

33

Lvl100Centrist t1_iu837sz wrote

>If this guy’s ideas are incorrect

He is not providing any new ideas. He is complaining that other people are ignoring "intelligence research" and claiming that some Very Bad Thing could happen if they continue to ignore it.

8

Eeekaa t1_iu862fn wrote

He was claiming that programs based on an environmentalist approach are doomed to failure, because no-one has researched if genetics are linked to intelligence. If there is a link, trying to address the issue through environment won't work.

−3

Lvl100Centrist t1_iu88ich wrote

>He was claiming that programs based on an environmentalist approach are doomed to failure

That is not for him to decide. Let the scientific process decide what will and will not fail.

>because no-one has researched if genetics are linked to intelligence

This is patently false. There has been so much research and debate over this. Even for laypeople, Charles Murray's books were always bestsellers.

People have a right to complain about this culture warrior worming his way into such a high office. He is pushing demonstrably wrong opinions, this isn't science - not to mention he poisons the mind of people like you.

7

Eeekaa t1_iu8bpco wrote

These are just his claims. I'm not versed in social sciences at all.

1

ABinturong t1_iu8wnkn wrote

And yet you're here defending him like he's your homie, what's that about?

−4

Eeekaa t1_iu8x06n wrote

I don't know how a reiteration of a point counts as defending.

0

ABinturong t1_iu90fa8 wrote

You don't? Shit, seems you know even less than you thought. Amazin.

−5

Eeekaa t1_iu9173x wrote

Instead of being a condescending prick who thinks he's very smart, you could always just tell me, someone who has admitted that social sciences aren't my field, why both the original point is incorrect and how reiterating counts as support.

6

ABinturong t1_iu92hzx wrote

Yes, I could, but you see, I'm a condescending prick... dilemmas.

−2

Hot-Independent-4486 t1_iu9dl1o wrote

The scientific process? Oh, you mean the capitalist process of paying scientists to research that which results in the most $$$?

1

personAAA t1_iu7kkvs wrote

No, the question is one of ethics.

Science itself has no ethics to it. Easy to dream up morally horrible scientifically sound experiments. Some type of experiments are off limits.

That said, this researcher was defending research linking genetics within groups of people to IQ

7

VSM1951AG t1_iu7wzgx wrote

And if the data show evidence that that’s the case, so be it. Again, the fact that some get emotional is no reason not to do the science. There’s nothing unethical in doing legitimate science to determine whether such a link exists, or defending such, assuming sound methods.

6

personAAA t1_iu8390o wrote

I agree that the science to this is ethical. I was just trying to phrase that comment neutral.

1