Of course, it would be idiotic to try to discredit a scientific position on “moral” or “political” grounds, and even more idiotic to claim success. Reviewing ‘The Bell Curve’ in The New Yorker, Stephen Jay Gould called attention to the authors’ questionable use of statistics and cherry-picked data.” Miss Sehgal then treats us to what she no doubt thinks is a devastating criticism: “In the years since its publication, the book has been roundly discredited on moral, political and scientific grounds. differences between the races were mostly innate and mostly intractable.” That was 70 pages out of more than 800, but they were only ones that mattered to a lot of people.
Herrnstein, arguing in two notorious chapters that I.Q. She starts with a poke at The Bell Curve: “Yes, that Charles Murray, who in 1994 co-authored ‘The Bell Curve,’ with Richard J.
Its review was written by Parul Sehgal, who has a Master of Fine Arts degree, and has written a lot about novels, poetry, and belles lettres but, so far as I can tell, has never read a science book in her life.
Yesterday, right on cue, the New York Times delivered what I predicted. In my review last week of Charles Murray’s latest book, Human Diversity, I predicted that the liberal press would be baffled by the book, either into silence or incoherence: “How do you honestly try to refute a systematic, intricate dismissal of your most cherished beliefs?” I asked, “Especially when, like most probable reviewers, you don’t understand the science?”
0 kommentar(er)
