>As I see it,
>the problem with your strategy is that it concedes that the argument is
>valid, that if the premises are coherent and true, if Blacks are genetically
>dumb, then they can be consigned to the rubbish heap of society, or at least
>that there is no point in affirmative action. It seems to me that this point
>ought not be conceded, because the argument is invalid.
Saying that race is an invalid concept to use in research on genetic differences in mental capacity is *not at all* to concede that "if Blacks are genetically dumb, then they can be consigned to the rubbish heap of society." The former doesn't logically entail the latter. I think that you are conflating how to contest *racism* with how to contest the idea of *meritocracy*. To contest meritocracy, it makes sense to say that low levels of mental capacity do not justify consigning the mentally disabled & those who don't do well in formal schooling to the rubbish heap of society. To contest scientific racism, in contrast, we have to struggle to counter the idea that race is a meaningful category in studies of mental capacity, for the very foundation of scientific racism is the premise that race is a _cause_ of differences in intelligence, which in turn explains differences in economic achievement.
Yoshie