Subject: Re: IQ issue
>Greg Nowell wrote, paraphrasing chomsky:
>
>>Therefore, even if you believed that IQ was an
>>appropriate basis for discrimination in society, you
>>would still have no basis for discrimination on race.
>>
>>In other words, even if you grant all the ifs, ands,
>>and buts to the "IQ among races is detectable" side
>>(and you don't have to do that), you still don't emerge
>>with any basis on which to organize any particular
>>social resources--including education, income, or
>>anything else. So what is the point of the argument?
there's something seriously amiss in the way chomsky approaches arguments such as these. mostly, chomsky makes really interesting comments, statements, and i generally have no problem with the substance of his points. but, and maybe this goes to his linguistics, i think he wants to make a distinction between the formal rules of speech and the propositions/judgements, as if the formal rules themselves are a good thing and only need to be applied more rigorously, as if they can be (or should be) separated from the propositions themselves.
at times, when I'm thinking of this as a kind of rhetorical strategy, that is, as a tactic to show the irrationality of what is deemed rational, i kinda enjoy it, like i expect a lot of people do. but i don't think he's that cynical about it. i think he actually believes you can and should distinguish the form from the content, which is why he comes out with arguments like the above. which shows that he really cannot come to terms with why so much 'irrationality' exists in the midst of 'rationality' - he thinks they can be distinguished outside of rhetoric.
angela