[lbo-talk] It's the IQ, stupid

ravi gadfly at exitleft.org
Fri Aug 27 13:28:27 PDT 2004


Calvin Ostrum wrote:
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>> Damn it! Doesn't anyone read Gould?
>>
>> There is no such thing as "innate intelligence"
>
> Lots of people read Gould, but not everyone who does so believes him.
>
> For example, Arthur Jensen himself:
> http://www.debunker.com/texts/jensen.html
>

from the above:


> Underlying all the varied detail of Gould's exposition is a
> philosophy of science, or rather a sociology of science, which
> emphasizes the notion that scientific endeavor generally is not so
> much a search for o objective knowledge as it is a sociopolitical
> activity, reflecting the social context and value systems within
> which individual scientists do their work. According to this view,
> socially conditioned presuppositions or prior prejudices about the
> nature of society force even "good scientists" to produce theories
> and conclusions that inevitably confirm their own social prejudices
> and lend to them additional support in the guise of scientific truth.
> <and more>

isn't gould's book a pretty straightforward critique of certain theories and personalities in the history of the intelligence measurement community? isn't adventures into the philosophy of science, in responses, the real strawman?

--ravi



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list