Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 23:41:50 -0400 Subject: Re[2]: Myth of the Bell Curve Kathy, I do n

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 23:41:50 -0400 From: "John A. Weaver University of Pittsburgh" Subject: Re[2]: Myth of the Bell Curve Kathy, I do not think Jackson's piece is necessarily an ad hominem piece. I think he raises some very important ethical points about academic work. Murray may say ignore my configurations about certain people in general, judge people as individuals. But he still made generalizations and I am willing to bet people will ignore his statement to ignore his generalizations and use his work to justify their politics, prejudices and ideas. It sounds like Murray wants it both ways. He wants to revise a racist line of hereditary thinking, but he doesn't want anyone to think he is a racist. To me this is a very important ethical question that we all have to raise when we are doing academic work. How will it be used? Impossible in knowing completely, but it has to be raised. In Murray's case I would like someone to tell me if such a line of work and logic should be taken serious in the first place? Should we say Murray is an academic therefore we should use "common Sense", or only look at his argument piece by piece. He may be a sound rhetorician with strong statistical configurations, but does this justify racial remarks? Does this warrant our time and best possible effort to overlook his generalizations and ferret out the so-called "solid academic work" or "sound logical constructions"? JOHN question about looking at the argument and not dismissing Murray's work as racist dribble.


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank