From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 14:27:58 MDT
Harvey wrote:
> Subject: RE: REVIEWS: The Bell Curve
>
>
> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote on Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:35 pm,
>> It's nice you mention your superior qualifications in this subject.
>> I know of course you are not trying to use "some graduate work" as
>> an independent argument.
>
> No. I was just correcting your mistaken assumption that we are both
> amateurs with no experience in this field.
### So you think you are not an amateur in this field?
------
>
>>> Why do we need to establish a list of pre-approved "authorities"?
>>> If you have any scientific reviews of The Bell Curve that support
>>> it, just post it!
>>
>> ### First let's progress in an orderly fashion through the basic
>> claims of modern psychometrics, which you so far dismissed. Once we
>> agree on the basics, we can handle the Bell Curve.
>
> I have no interest in these games. If you have evidence, just post
> it. Why do I need to go through a series of negotiations and
> agreements first?
### Discussing the basics of psychometrics in the course of reviewing the
Bell Curve is not a game - it is the gist of the matter, since TBC *is*
about psychometrics.
-------
>
>>>>> The American Psychological Association denounced the book by
>>>>> concluding "The scientific basis of The Bell Curve is fraudulent."
>>>>
>>>> ### Am I to infer that the above statement is an actual quote from
>>>> an official APA policy statement? Please be so kind and provide a
>>>> link.
>>>
>>> No. Why would you infer that? I clearly gave the reference for
>>> this as coming from The Bell Curve FAQ at
>>> <http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-bellcurvescience.htm>.
>>
>> ### Ah, so you didn't read the APA report.
>
> DAMN IT! THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID! THIS IS THE THIRD TIME YOU
> ACCUSED ME OF NOT READING REPORTS THAT I HAVE READ! PLEASE STOP IT!
### You stated "The American Psychological Association denounced the book by
concluding "The scientific basis of The Bell Curve is fraudulent."
I provided a clear proof that the APA made no such statement (link to the
actual APA report, which doesn't contain the word fraudulent, and an
explanation of who used that word). Basically, there are two explanations
why you said it: either you made a mistake (because you didn't read the
text), or else you said it knowing it to be untrue (if you read it). I
assume the former explanation is the correct one. It is generally expected
in urbane disputes, that the party whose statement was found to be factually
wrong will retract it.
Please retract the statement I quoted above. You do not need to use capital
letters. Also, please refrain from profanity.
>
>> ### You insist on calling advocacy sites you quoted as
>> "scientific studies".
>
> No, I don't. But they contain summaries of what the studies said.
> You yourself gave an abstract of your study below instead of the
> actual study. Why am I being held to a different standard than you?
> Why don't you just go look up the original studies if you want?
### As a professional in the field of psychometrics you are certainly aware
of the difference between peer-reviewed research, and off-the-cuff
interviews. I expect you to quote the former, just as I do.
If you want to peruse the full text of the studies I abstracted, please tell
me - I'll be happy to send them to you.
Talking about your links - the only one which is not a political advocacy
site, the APA site at http://www.apa.org/journals/bell.html contains a
glowing review of TBC (at the top of the page), to quote "This is a superbly
written and exceedingly well-documented book. ", with a scathing minority
review at the bottom of the page.
------
>
>> The above quotes indicate that intelligence as measured by IQ tests
>> does predict scholastic achievement (grades), job success (patents,
>> awards, obtaining PhD-level education).
>>
>> Do you still think that "IQ doesn't predict anything"?
>
> ??? You are changing the subject. Yes, I personally believe that IQ
> doesn't predict scholastic performance.
### Ah, so this is indeed your personal view. You also implicitly agree that
this is a minority view among IQ researchers (since you provide no
peer-reviewed articles to support this opinion).
------
>
> But this is not the evidence we were discussing. I am interested in
> the claim that The Bell Curve was universally accepted by scientists.
> I showed references to books, studies, reviews and examinations that
> claim it was bogus science. I am still awaiting any similar reports
> that concluded it was good science. I am not going to participate
> any of these side discussions.
>
> If you have this evidence, post it. I'm getting tired of continuing
> this argument just in hopes that any of the promised evidence will
> eventually show up.
### Well, I provided the first installment of evidence in the last post,
namely I showed that TBC and current research agree that IQ is a good
predictor of achievement.
By the way, I notice you are "interested in the claim that The Bell Curve
was universally accepted by scientists". I do not recall making this claim.
I merely provide evidence that the TBC expresses the "prevailing views of
the relevant scientists", as I wrote before.
OK, so here is the primary-source information of the day:
You wrote "HGP said the genetics was wrong." (HGP = Human Genome
Project/Organization)
The truth: HUGO did not produce a policy statement on TBC. The document you
were misled to believe to be a HUGO statement,"The bell curve: a
statement.", Science. 1996 Feb 2;271(5249):579-80 ; 8571114, by Andrews LB.
Nelkin D., was a private letter of some members of HUGO. Specifically,
Andrews is a lawyer, and Nelkin is a bioethicist. Neither one has ever
published anything in hard sciences (including genetics), although they
published profusely "about" science (total of 48 and 53 articles, not a
single one in genetics).
Please retract your statement "HGP said the genetics was wrong."
Next installment of evidence will follow.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:08 MST