Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushtons Mismeasure of Science - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushtons Mismeasure of Science PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 15419-YzQ3O



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushtons Mismeasure of Science

Description:

Kim. Correlation Magnitude, Significance, and What It All Means. Racism, Lies, and Omissions: ... Kim. Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers ' ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:104
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 82
Provided by: natalie7
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushtons Mismeasure of Science


1
Racism, Lies, and Omissions Rushtons
Mismeasure of Science
  • Applying their knowledge of scientific methods,
    the fallacies of science, and the evidence of
    nature v. nurture debate, students investigate
    and write a major paper on Rushtons conclusion
    that science has established the evolutionary and
    genetic basis of racial, sexual, and class
    differences in intelligence.

2
The Contenders A timeline…
  • 1996 Stephen Jay Gould writes a revised edition
    of The Mismeasure of Man.
  • 1997 J. Phillipe Rushton publishes, Race,
    Intelligence, and the Brain The Errors and
    Omissions of the Revised Edition of S.J.
    Goulds The Mismeasure of Man in Personality and
    Individual Differences.
  • 2000 Sixteen students in Honors 120, The
    Individual and Community In Modern Society,
    research the topic and write a refutation of
    Rushtons critique of Gould.

3
The Researchers…
Authors Natalie Ebig Jonathan
Keesecker Contributors
  • Stephanie Mack
  • Steven VanSteenkiste
  • Kim Whitney
  • Courtney Clancy
  • Becky Ely
  • Andy Erlewein
  • Eric Kleitch
  • Alexis Bowser
  • Jason Frank
  • Todd Simon
  • Cat Esmer
  • Laura Birch
  • Kari Wieber
  • Joylynn Henning

4
The Contenders… Stephen Jay Gould
  • "Humans are not the end result of predictable
    evolutionary progress, but
    rather a fortuitous cosmic
    afterthought, a tiny little twig on
    the enormously
    arborescent bush of life, which if replanted from
    seed, would almost surely not grow this twig
    again."
    - Stephen Jay Gould

5
The Contenders… J. Phillipe Rushton
  • Beliefs of Phillipe Rushton
  • That human beings exist on a scale negroid,
    caucasoid, mongoloid
  • That the negroid has r tendendies (rapid and
    prolific reproduction)
  • That the mongoloid has K tendencies
    (reproductive restraint leading to a few well
    cared for offspring)
  • As oysters are to apes so are blacks to whites

6
The Bell Curve By Richard Herrnstein and Charles
Murray
The Ensuing Controversy…
  • Take the racist beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan or
    the Aryan Nation. Cloak those beliefs in academic
    robes and what do you get? You get a best
    seller.
  • Randolph T. Holhut

7
The Racist Money… The Pioneer Fund
  • The Fund's stated purpose was to "improve the
    character of the American people" by encouraging
    the procreation of descendants of "white persons"
    and to provide aid in conducting research on
    "race betterment with special reference to the
    people of the United States.
  • S. R. Shearer

8
Racism, Lies, and Omissions Rushtons
Mismeasure of Science
Applying their knowledge of scientific methods,
the fallacies of science, and the evidence of
nature v. nurture debate, students investigate
and write a major paper on Rushtons conclusion
that science has established the evolutionary and
genetic basis of racial, sexual, and class
differences in intelligence.
9
(Supposed) Brain Size and Intelligence Quotient
Correlations
10
Brain Size and IQ…
  • Conveniently, Rushton discards the fact that
    brain weight varies with body height claiming
    that by aggregating numbers for each race,
    variance will average out (10). This obviously
    gives no consideration to environmental or
    nutritional needs, so in effect Rushton is saying
    that two people predestined to grow to be six
    feet tall will reach that height regardless, even
    if one were in optimum conditions and the other
    without any nutritional value for a long period
    of time.
  • Todd
  •  

11
Brain Size and IQ…
  • Lieberman reports that the average brain
    ranges in size from 1000 to 2000 cc and that
    Neanderthals had a cranial size of approximately
    1500 cc (Lieberman 1999 11). An expert like
    Rushton certainly cannot account for the fact
    that most human advancement…has come about in
    times where the human head is smaller than it use
    to be. emphasis in the original
  • Steven

12
Brain Size and IQ…
  • Returning, for the moment, to Rushtons extensive
    studies in b.s. (again, brain size), it is
    apparent that he fails to grasp the big picture.
    The measurements Rushton cites from Beals, Smith
    and Dodd (1984) and Rushton (1992, 1994),
    supposedly display the hierarchical ordering of
    Asians, Europeans, and Africans in terms of brain
    volume, with Asians possessing the largest
    volumes. The most generous of these (Beals,
    Smith, Dodds, actually a measure of cranial
    volume) reveals a mean difference of 147 cubic
    centimeters. However, assuming a normal
    variation of 1000 to 2000 cubic centimeters in
    brain volume (Lieberman, 1999), this 147 cubic
    centimeter difference separating the upper and
    lower means is a relatively small difference
    considering the 1000 cubic centimeter range.
    Such a difference, as stated by Lieberman, fails
    to represent a casually significant difference
    (Lieberman, 1999).
  • Jonathan

13
Racism, Lies, and Omissions Rushtons
Mismeasure of Science
  • Applying their knowledge of scientific methods,
    the fallacies of science, and the evidence of
    nature v. nurture debate, students investigate
    and write a major paper on Rushtons conclusion
    that science has established the evolutionary and
    genetic basis of racial, sexual, and class
    differences in intelligence.

14
The Number Game…. Correlation Magnitude,
Significance, and What It All Means
15
Correlation Magnitude, Significance, and What It
All Means
  • The article goes on to say that the actual
    average found by Van Valen was 0.10 which is
    pretty close to calling it chance. Van Valen
    said he got 0.30 by applying a statistical
    correction…based on his guess to the 0.10
    because of the loss of information due to the
    poor measures of intelligence. That is how Van
    Valen arrived at his 0.30 correlation. The
    explanation may seem a little shaky, but the real
    kicker is that Van Valen admitted, His study
    does not prove that a relationship between brain
    size and intelligence exists! (my own exclamation
    point). He also stated he knows of no study
    which directly correlates brain size (or cranial
    capacity) and intelligence (Weizmann, Wiener,
    Wiesenthal, Ziegler, 1990 10). Did Rushton
    realize that he was using data that even the
    authors of the data doubted to be true? Or did
    Rushton just ignore that fact? The latter choice
    seems to be true…
  • Joylynn

16
Correlation Magnitude, Significance, and What It
All Means
  • It does not seem that Rushton is equipped fully
    with the necessary understanding of statistical
    data. He condemns Gould for not mentioning
    studies that reveal a correlation of
    approximately .30 between brain size and
    intelligence, when in fact these numbers mean
    relatively little… The .30 coefficient so
    applauded by Rushton must be squared
    …(indicating) only 9 of IQ can be explained away
    by brain size…
  • Steve

17
Correlation Magnitude, Significance, and What It
All Means
  • Rushton cites conclusions that seem supported by
    the numbers he presents, but are, in fact, not
    supported by the researchers given. In other
    words, it appears as if Rushton read and reported
    what he wanted to hear. The research in
    Andreason et al. does show that there is a
    correlation between brain size and IQ. The
    numbers cited are up to a .52 correlation, which
    correspond to and exceed Rushtons cited
    correlation of .44. When these numbers are
    squared as necessary to analyze these numbers, it
    appears that 12 to 31 percent of intelligence is
    contributed to by brain size.
  • Kim

18
Racism, Lies, and Omissions Rushtons
Mismeasure of Science
  • Applying their knowledge of scientific methods,
    the fallacies of science, and the evidence of
    nature v. nurture debate, students investigate
    and write a major paper on Rushtons conclusion
    that science has established the evolutionary and
    genetic basis of racial, sexual, and class
    differences in intelligence.

19
Americanization and Untruths… Bias in IQ Tests
20
Bias in IQ Tests
  • To further cast doubt upon those that Rushton
    relies so heavily upon, the IQ test that they
    have concocted needs to be examined. Recently in
    our class, we discussed such tests, and even were
    able to experience first hand what they are like.
    Just as we talked about them in class, and had
    become expectant of certain characteristics, when
    we experienced the childrens test, it was very,
    very U.S. Americanized.
  • Eric

21
Bias in IQ Tests
  • …There is much evidence proving that IQ tests are
    biased (Gould 1996 31). Rushton apparently does
    not think so and uses Zindi as one of his
    sources, claiming that he found a black IQ of 70.
    Well yes, Zindi did find a mean IQ of 70s for
    blacks, but all of the tested children were
    Zimbabwean taking a European-based test… Zindi
    himself is a Zimbabwean and the actual point to
    his study was to illustrate the bias in most IQ
    tests. Rushton does not include Zindis
    conclusion… It is only when such measures are
    taken that Zimbabweans can begin to see a new
    meaning in psychometric measurement (Zindi
    1994552).
  • Steve

22
Bias in IQ Tests
  • Goulds book is not just an argument that
    explains that there is no correlation between
    brain size and IQ, nor is it about any other
    simple issue. It is about deep lying error of
    using intelligence as a fixed, single quantity.
  • Kim

23
Racism, Lies, and Omissions Rushtons
Mismeasure of Science
  • Applying their knowledge of scientific methods,
    the fallacies of science, and the evidence of
    nature v. nurture debate, students investigate
    and write a major paper on Rushtons conclusion
    that science has established the evolutionary and
    genetic basis of racial, sexual, and class
    differences in intelligence.

24
Politics Speaking for Science Political Agendas
and Political Correctness
25
Political Agendas and Political
Correctness Immigration not influenced by IQ
testing
  • Rushton attempts to justify early IQ testers in
    the United States and prove that tests like the
    Yerkes military IQ exam had no effect on
    immigration policies in the 1920s. Rushton
    looks to Snyderman and Herrnstein for his support
    saying…Congress took no notice of intelligence
    testers and called none to testify… If one
    consults Rushtons source … he or she would find
    this, It may therefore seems plausible that the
    test data figured prominently in the passage of
    the Immigration Act of 1924, which placed severe
    restrictions along national lines (Snyderman and
    Hernnstein 1983991)… Rushton has blatantly
    lied to us in this review.
  • Steve

26
Political Agendas and Political
Correctness Pioneer Fund
  • Rushton, originally from South Africa, receives
    grants from the Pioneer Fund. This is not
    surprising, since the fund has given money to
    every scientist in the United States who has
    proclaimed the inferiority of African Americans
    and called for adoption of eugenics as the basis
    for public policy (Rosenthal 1995 The Pioneer
    Fund Financier of Racist Research).
  • Kim

27
Political Agendas and Political
Correctness Pioneer Fund
  • …The majority of Rushtons research is based on
    scientists who are supported by the Pioneer Fund,
    or who are affiliated with the affluent members
    of the Pioneer Fund executive board. Arthur
    Jensen and Richard Lynn are recipients of at
    least 1,325,000 worth of research funding for
    Lynns research on the differences between
    races and Jensens research on race and IQ
    (Holhut Naureckas 1994/1995). Lynns racism is
    proven in his statement to The New Republic in
    1994, Who can doubt that the Caucasoid and the
    Mongoloid are the only two races that have made
    any significant contributions to civilization?
    (Holhut). Rushton also cites such researchers as
    T.J. Bouchard and M. Snyderman, both known
    Pioneer-supported scientists. All of these men
    have contributed to the bulk of Rushtons
    critique of Gould, and yet they have all been
    noted as affiliates in a known racist
    organization.
  • Natalie

28
Political Agendas and Political
Correctness Pioneer Fund
  • Rushton is oblivious to facts that do not support
    his cause and consistently uses the same group of
    individuals with beliefs similar to his own as
    the main sources for his works. In fact, he
    cited himself eleven times in his rebuttal of
    Gould. Rushton feeds off those who lean toward
    racism and uses his unproven theories to promote
    social mistreatment of those at the base of his
    racial hierarchy.
  • Todd

29
Political Agendas and Political
Correctness Pioneer Fund
  • Both Rushton and Jensen have obtained a
    substantial amount of their funding from the
    non-profit organization The Pioneer Fund. In
    fact, between 1981 and 1992 Rushton received over
    441,000 from the Fund. Along with these two
    men, the Fund has contributed money to William
    Shockley, a Stanford physicist and advocate of
    the theory that whites are genetically determined
    to be more intelligent than blacks. Shockley
    champions the controversial program of the
    sterilization of people scoring below the average
    score of 100 on IQ tests… Is it a coincidence
    that the majority of scientists granted money by
    an organization promoting eugenics and
    biological-determinism gather research and
    evidence favoring the Pioneer Funds interests?
  • Stephanie

30
Political Agendas and Political
Correctness Pioneer Fund
  • Rushtons research was funded by the Pioneer
    fund…which according to the New York Times as
    referenced in Liechtenstein 1977, advances an
    agenda of fascism, repression, and racism.
  • Alexis

31
Political Agendas and Political
Correctness Pioneer Fund
  • Rushton makes reference to an article published
    by R. Lynn in 1991… The article Lynns was
    published in the Mankind Quarterly…a link to the
    Mankind Quarterly and their publishers can be
    found on the homepage of an organization named
    Stormfront White Pride Worldwide
    …(www.stromfront.org)
  • Stromfornt is a resource for those courageous
    men and women fighting to preserve their western
    culture, ideals, freedom of speech and
    association- a forum of planning strategies and
    forming political and social groups to ensure
    victory.
  • …The people that fund his Rushton work, as well
    as his colleagues, are all pursuing the goal of
    promoting white supremacy.
  • Alexis

32
Political Agendas and Political
Correctness Pioneer Fund
  • …Rushton is confusing correlation with causation.
    A correlation coefficient merely shows the
    relationship between two independent variables,
    and just because two things can be statistically
    proven to be related, it DOES NOT mean that one
    causes the other… Rushton fails to note any of
    the other factors that could have contributed to
    the findings…He simply continues to assert that
    the relationship is causal. This is more than
    innocent omission it is purposeful
    misrepresentation of facts.
  • Alexis

33
Political Agendas and Political
Correctness Pioneer Fund
  • In the opening paragraph of Race Intelligence
    and the Brain, Rushton accuses Gould of
    misrepresentation of evidence… And he argues
    that Gould allowed his activist background
    (Rushton 1997 169) to interfere with his
    standard of honest assessment and best judgement
    of evidence of empirical truth (Gould 1996 as
    quoted in Rushton 1977 178). But what influence
    does Rushtons background have on his work? …It
    is known that he was raised in South Africa….
    The Pioneer Fund speaking to Rushtons source of
    research funds was set up in 1937…to promote the
    breeding of white persons who settled in the
    original thirteen colonies prior to the adoption
    of the Constitution (Rosenthal 1995 14)… The
    Fund has been described as pro-Nazi (Rosenthal
    1995 47) and ultra rightists (Reed 1994 15)….
    It is very difficult to take into account his
    childhood in South Africa, the reputation of his
    funding, and the subject matter of his research
    and not see personal bias…
  • Courtney

34
Political Agendas and Political
Correctness Other items
  • Rushton has been criticized for misrepresenting
    the studies of past scientists and for displaying
    a bigoted attitude towards his studies. A
    Canadian magazine called Rushton, a goofball
    (MacLeans, Feb. 20, 1989, p.56). The writer for
    that magazine is not the only person who feels
    this way.
  • Jason

35
Racism, Lies, and Omissions Rushtons
Mismeasure of Science
  • Applying their knowledge of scientific methods,
    the fallacies of science, and the evidence of
    nature v. nurture debate, students investigate
    and write a major paper on Rushtons conclusion
    that science has established the evolutionary and
    genetic basis of racial, sexual, and class
    differences in intelligence.

36
The (False) Biology of Race
37
Race
  • The biological concept of race has been found to
    be diminishing in importance (Weizmann 19905)…
    the human race has become so intertwined that it
    can no longer be classified into races on purely
    biological terms…Some say that the division of
    race into three races is far too simplistic
    (Rosen, 1994 14)… And some flat-out claim that
    Rushton is a racist (Rosen 199414). Either way,
    there is no reason to accept any of Rushtons
    data concerning race and IQ…
  • Steve

38
Race
  • According to Rushton, Wilson claimed blacks had
    smaller brains than whites and Orientals, who
    evolved in the more demanding climates of the
    north. (Mehler, par. 4) Surprised by Rushtons
    presentation, Wilson said, Im not aware of any
    such evidence. The claim shocks and dismays me.
    Wilson went on to say that the actual meaning
    behind his studies was to show that Asians are
    as closely related to modern Africans as
    Europeans are and that Rushton was
    misinterpreting our findings (Mehler, par. 4).
    Rushton says Gould owes it to the readers to
    explain his omissions but the same can be said
    for him.
  • Todd

39
Race
  • Gould, as well as many other scientists, argues
    that there is no such concept as race. Once
    these concepts of race and IQ are shot down, all
    of Rushtons statements involving these two
    concepts collapse.
  • Becky

40
Race
  • Among Rustons …naïve finding is that blacks are
    given to violating the social order… The good
    professor seems completely oblivious to the whole
    history of the black race in the United States
    and its position as the low income, ill-educated
    underclass and how this just might relate to
    their frustration and their rebellion...all
    understandable if one ever got out of the lab and
    the classroom and walked through Alabama or
    Harlem or the 70 of Washington D.C that starts
    two blocks east of the White House (Fotheringham
    198956).
  • Steve

41
Race
  • Rushton claims that he labeled people by
    referring to the common usage and popular
    opinion if who belongs in what category. I do
    not find this to be a dependable method of
    classification… It is virtually impossible to
    tell where one race ends and another begins… He
    believes that the human race can be classified
    into three categories, Caucasoid, Mongoloids, and
    Negroid… Michael J. A. Howe…points out the
    fallacies of this (Howe 199768)
  • This division conveniently ignores a number of
    complications such as the fact that
    anthropologists question the scientific
    legitimacy of race as a category, and the finding
    that differences between individuals within races
    are as large as differences between races.
  • Kari

42
Race
  • Lombroso believed that IQ, brain size, race, and
    criminality were all linked… Rushton defends
    these theories. But the study he cites (Raine
    1993) has nothing to do with race and
    criminality. Rushton himself states that Raine
    found a link between frontal lobe dysfunction and
    violent behavior, not a connection between race
    and criminal behavior. The differences between
    frontal lobe dysfunction and brown skin should be
    obvious!
  • Courtney

43
Race
  • Rushton uses the results of the Minnesota
    Adoption study as proof that IQ is
    genetically, rather than environmentally
    influenced (Rushton 1997 177) Adopted children
    with two White biological parents had an average
    IQ of 106, adopted children with one White and
    One Black biological parent had an average IQ of
    99 and adopted children with two Black biological
    parents had an IQ of 89.
  • What Rushton fails to tell the reader is
    parental race subsumes a number of biological
    and social differences between the two groups
    and that the Adoption Studys results highlight
    the strong impact and that dramatic environmental
    interventions can have on cognitive development
    (Weinberg, Scarr and Waldman 1992 131). Rushton
    presents the Minnesota Adoption Study as if it
    confirmed the existence of racial heritability of
    IQ differences when in fact the study did exactly
    the opposite… Maybe Rushton missed that point.
  • Courtney

44
Racism, Lies, and Omissions Rushtons
Mismeasure of Science
  • Applying their knowledge of scientific methods,
    the fallacies of science, and the evidence of
    nature v. nurture debate, students investigate
    and write a major paper on Rushtons conclusion
    that science has established the evolutionary and
    genetic basis of racial, sexual, and class
    differences in intelligence.

45
Huh? What? Say Again? Hmmm?
  • Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers

46
Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers
  • Rushton is quick to accuse Gould of omitting
    data, but he is also quick to omit things
    himself. In his article, Race Differences in
    Behavior A Review and Evolutionary Analysis,
    Rushton openly admits to omitting data that does
    not follow his conclusion. He writes, Many
    studies finding an absence of differences
    between races have necessarily been omitted,
    (1017). I am curious to know why it was
    necessary to omit this data. Could it have
    been because it did not support Rushtons beliefs
    that Mongoloids are superior and Negroids are
    inferior in many areas of intelligence and
    temperament?
  • Becky

47
Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers
  • Even when Rushton manages to accurately represent
    his sources, he often gives insignificant studies
    much more importance than they merit… The
    study by Wickett, Vernon, and Lee (1996), which
    Rushton refers to on page 170, is nothing more
    than a one-paragraph abstract. Incidentally,
    even this tiny reference is contrary to Rushtons
    ideas, stating that there was no indication of a
    within family correlation between brain volume
    and IQ. Similarly, Rushton cites Glen and Ellis
    (1988) as having found that the doctored photos
    of the Kallikak family strikes judges when
    empirically tested as kind (Rushton 1997 171).
    Rushton… takes this study seriously, but the
    authors themselves said it was an impromptu,
    non-random, mini-study (of 29 office
    co-workers) (Glenn and Ellis 1988 742), which
    was conducted in their office building!
  • Courtney

48
Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers
  • In The Mismeasure of Man (201-202), Gould accuses
    H.H. Goddard of retouching the lines of some
    photographs of inferior people with dark lines
    in order to make their appearance more foolish or
    primitive. Rushton refutes this accusation by
    saying such retouching was common during this
    period and thus betrays no evil intent… This is
    supposed to be an acceptable reply to Goulds
    accusations, but in actuality it only confirms
    Goulds case. It does not matter that this
    practice may have been common the pictures have
    still been altered to present an image not in its
    original form, which could end up promoting a
    diabolical image. The pictures of the Kallikak
    family have been toyed with and the added dark
    lines can affect the image in a negative way.
    Rushton only helps Goulds case by admitting that
    there was, in fact, touch up work performed on
    the pictures.
  • Andy

49
Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers
  • Rushton presents an acceptable excuse the
    explanation that such retouching was common in
    Goddards time. Unfortunately, this alone does
    not exonerate Goddard of charges of poor science-
    if, today, it was common practice for scientists
    to fudge data to fit expectations would that
    neutralize the lack of precision caused by
    fudging data? No, poor science is poor science
    regardless of how widely practiced it is, and
    Goddards remains poor science.
  • Jonathan

50
Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers
  • Rushton mentions studies by Jensen, Weng, and
    Carroll which provide detailed and analytical
    demonstrations of the reality of g (Rushton
    1997 173)… This article is merely an
    editorial piece defending Sir Cyril Burt from
    Goulds charge of falsifying evidence. It does
    state that g exists, but it provides no
    demonstrations, analytical or otherwise…
    Readers have no way of knowing whether an
    impressive-looking citation is actually as
    important as it seems, and Rushton uses this fact
    to his advantage.
  • Courtney

51
Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers
  • A further flaw of Rushtons is his tendency to
    contradict himself. One such case was in his
    defense of Morton. He reproduces a table of
    Mortons data from Goulds book that shows
    Caucasians as well as Mongoloids as having the
    largest brains listed at 87 cubic inches. These
    figures, which he defends as non-trivial, would
    defy his own theory of the racial hierarchy
    (174).
  • Todd

52
Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers
  • Rushtons most dishonest use of A New Look at
    Mortons Craniological Research is in the phrase
    he presents to discredit Goulds work. Rushton
    writes that Michael concluded that Mortons
    research was conducted with integrity…(while)…Gou
    ld is mistaken (171). The use of the ellipses
    in this sentence is misleading in the least. On
    the page that Rushton cites, Michael states the
    two phrases separated by double ellipses in two
    different paragraphs. Presenting them in this
    way takes them out of context and omits
    statements contrary to Rushtons claims. The
    real sentences are no as unfriendly to Gould.
    Contrary to Goulds interpretations, I conclude
    that Mortons research was conducted with
    integrity…Although Gould is mistaken in many of
    his assumptions about Morton and his work, he is
    correct in asserting that these tables are
    scientifically unsound (1988353).
  • Kim

53
Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers
  • Rushton often turns evidence around to support
    his ideas. While a statistic may show that
    environment is the cause for disparity, Rushton
    will turn it into something that helps prove his
    theory that genetics are the cause.
  • Jason

54
Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers
  • However, where Rushton accuses Gould of two major
    scientific offenses- attacking character and
    ignoring significant research- Rushton himself
    appears guilty of the same two blunders, plus
    one- the manipulation of citations in order to
    serve an alternative purpose.
  • Jonathan

55
Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers
  • Gould does not outright attack scientists he
    attacks their methods. The Mismeasure of Man was
    not written to merely downgrade the scientists
    mentioned, but rather to present the flaws and
    biases in their work…. Rushton doesnt seem to
    understand that Gould is not trying to critique
    every new scientist that publishes a study. He
    is not attacking the studies he is attacking the
    methods.
  • Becky

56
Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers
  • Rushton also makes inconclusive, non-supported
    statements. For example, Rushton writes,
    Lombroso was the first to understand how
    Darwins theory of evolution provides a
    biological understanding of why some people are
    more prone to criminality than others… (175).
    Huh? The completed paragraph cites no research
    to back up Rushtons claims that Gould is wrong
    about Lombroso. Thus, he attempts to make the
    readers believe his unfounded views simply
    because he has written them down. Such is the
    case in reading many of Rushtons claims, because
    they are, as shown, inconclusive.
  • Natalie

57
Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers
  • Another quote Rushton takes out of context
    appears when he states that Gould claims that
    Henry Goddard and Carl Brigham labeled
    four-fifths of the Jewish immigrants as morons in
    1917 and 1923 respectively. (Rushton 171)
    Rushton makes it sound as if Gould had the
    malicious intent to portray Goddard and Brigham
    as mindless fools. In the pages cited by
    Rushton, Gould shows that Goddard himself was
    confused by the results he obtained when studying
    the IQs of Jewish immigrants, and looked for
    reasons to explain the low scores. Goddard
    exhausted all the possibilities and eventually
    concluded the immigrants he tested were not of
    the same intellectual caliber as early
    immigrants. (Gould 197)
  • Stephanie

58
Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers
  • When speaking of the refutations against Goulds
    work that were given in The Bell Curve, Rushton
    asks, Did Gould overlook these refutations?
    (172). I now must ask, did Rushton overlook the
    entire essay that Gould added to his revised
    edition that was solely devoted to The Bell
    Curve? Gould does in fact answer these
    refutations. He gives his opinions of The Bell
    Curve and debunks its information in the same
    ways that he critiques other scientists- by
    examining their methods.
  • Becky

59
Racism, Lies, and Omissions Rushtons
Mismeasure of Science
  • Applying their knowledge of scientific methods,
    the fallacies of science, and the evidence of
    nature v. nurture debate, students investigate
    and write a major paper on Rushtons conclusion
    that science has established the evolutionary and
    genetic basis of racial, sexual, and class
    differences in intelligence.

60
Considering Gender…. Rushtons Fatal Flaw
61
Sex and IQ
  • One interesting concept from Rushtons critique
    of Gould occurred when Rushton was discussing the
    difference between genders. Here, Rushton admits
    a flaw in the idea of cranial capacity in
    relation to intelligence. He states, The brain
    size studies do present a paradox (Rushton,
    175). The paradox he refers to is about the fact
    that, although men have larger brains than women,
    there is very little discrepancy between the two
    in IQ testing. It is sort of funny how Rushton
    just brushes past this fact. One would think
    that by looking at the gender situation, it could
    be concluded that there really is no correlation
    between brain size and IQ, and that the race
    difference is either a coincidence or a matter of
    environment.
  • Jason

62
Sex and IQ
  • Rushton says, …facts remain facts. Brain size
    and IQ are correlated… (p. 178, 1996). If
    facts remain facts, why did Rushton disprove
    himself previously in his critique by saying,
  • Women have proportionately smaller brains than
    do men, but apparently, the same intelligence
    scores…these particular differences in brain size
    have nothing to do with cognitive ability but
    reflect greater male muscle mass and physical
    co-ordination on tasks like throwing or catching
    (p. 175, 1996). Why, then, are brain size and IQ
    size not related when it comes to gender but the
    two are significantly correlated (p. 170, 1996)
    when it comes to race or social class? It seems
    to me that Rushton is being extremely biased and
    incongruent in his conclusions.
  • Laura

63
Racism, Lies, and Omissions Rushtons
Mismeasure of Science
  • Applying their knowledge of scientific methods,
    the fallacies of science, and the evidence of
    nature v. nurture debate, students investigate
    and write a major paper on Rushtons conclusion
    that science has established the evolutionary and
    genetic basis of racial, sexual, and class
    differences in intelligence.

64
Maybe Rushton Did Not Read Goulds The Mismeasure
of Man
65
Did Rushton Even Get It?
  • Gould makes a great effort in several parts of
    the book to explain that he is using the
    scientists to illustrate and not to condemn My
    message is not that biological determinists were
    bad scientists or even that they were always
    wrong. Rather, I believe that science must be
    understood as a social phenomenon, a gutsy, human
    enterprise (53). Once again, Rushton fails to
    see a point of Goulds work, and also misuses the
    studies that he uses to defend his sacred
    predecessors.
  • Kim

66
Did Rushton Even Get It?
  • This misrepresentation extends, however, beyond
    character and into the realm of science itself
    where Rushton attempts to refute Goulds
    research. Obvious of Rushtons scientific work
    is his obsession with b.s, or brain size, in
    attempting to evaluate the intelligence of an
    individual. Defending his assertion through
    studies performed by A.R. Jensen (1994) and
    others, Rushton confidently announces, the more
    a subtest loads on the g-factor… the higher the
    correlation with brain size. The problem,
    however, is that Rushtons comment does not
    appropriately address the subject of dispute-
    Gould, in fact, outright rejects the very
    possibility of g-factor even existing as a
    reified thing capable of making non-abstract
    predictions! Rushton, however, chooses to
    completely ignore Goulds discussion of the
    inappropriateness of g.
  • Jonathan

67
Did Rushton Even Get It?
  • Rushton does not talk about biological
    determinism, only mentions reification once in a
    sarcastic tone, and defends g on the basis that
    it can be found in correlations, and not that it
    is actuality a real entity. He does not start,
    continue, or conclude with statements that
    biological determinism is credible, or that
    intelligence is more than just a number.
  • Kim

68
Did Rushton Even Get It?
  • It seems to me that Rushton failed to read the
    introduction to Goulds revised and expanded
    edition because if he had, he would have realized
    that presenting new, fad-like evidence was by no
    means Goulds purpose. Gould explains himself by
    saying, I focused upon the great arguments of
    historical originators, not on transient and
    ephemeral modern usages. Five years from now,
    who will remember (who would even care to recall)
    the rapiers of rhetoric, or the tendentious
    arguments of our current and largely derivative
    gladiators… (p. 22-23, 1996).
  • Laura

69
Did Rushton Even Get It?
  • It is obvious that this critique is more about
    what Gould is standing for and against than any
    errors and omissions.
  • Kim

70
Racism, Lies, and Omissions Rushtons
Mismeasure of Science
  • Applying their knowledge of scientific methods,
    the fallacies of science, and the evidence of
    nature v. nurture debate, students investigate
    and write a major paper on Rushtons conclusion
    that science has established the evolutionary and
    genetic basis of racial, sexual, and class
    differences in intelligence.

71
Time Grows Short… Researchers Sum It Up
72
Student Conclusions
  • So if the answer to the question about the
    continuance of race and intelligence studies is
    yes, if, then the answer to whether Rushton
    should continue is definitely not. In a lengthy
    critique on a book that is overwhelmingly
    praised, Rushton fails to meet even his own
    criteria of good scholarship.
  • Kim

73
Student Conclusions
  • It has become clear that this case against The
    Mismeasure of Man has some definite flaws and
    this battle on race, intelligence, and IQ leaves
    Rushton with some serious wounds.
  • Kim

74
Student Conclusions
  • Dr. Rushtons basis of review of Gould consists
    of fallacies, negligence, and illogical
    conclusions derived from illogical data.
  • Todd

75
Student Conclusions
  • Unfortunately, Rushton has revealed himself to be
    the ultimate hypocrite, firing a bullet that
    carries his own inscription. In attempting to
    criticize S.J. Gould and The Mismeasure of Man
    and simultaneously push the reality of an
    abstract intelligence factor supposedly dictated
    by heredity, Rushton overextends himself,
    demonstrating exactly what scientists should not
    do.
  • Jonathan

76
Student Conclusions
  • Mothers have said for generations that those who
    live in glass houses should not throw stones.
    Well, J. Philippe Rushton should have listened to
    his mother.
  • Laura

77
Student Conclusions
  • There is blatant racism apparent in the research
    that Rushton cites through the biased journals,
    biased researchers, and the use of his own biased
    research to back up his biased opinions.
  • Natalie

78
Student Conclusions
  • The issue isnt just this particular work of
    Gould. The issue is a recurring war of biology
    versus culture, the battle is being fought to
    determine the stand of race in this issue and
    contrary to Rushtons beliefs, it is far from
    over.
  • Kim

79
Student Conclusions
  • I think that C. Loring Brace says it best. He
    comments, Rushton uses selected pickings to
    reach a predetermined conclusion. When you take
    his work apart and look at the pieces, it
    completely collapses. Its not science, its
    racism, (qtd. in Dolphin and McCann 6).
  • Becky

80
Student Conclusions
  • Unfortunately, for every study done for or
    against this man, he benefits. Without a doubt,
    a decade of media attention will surely leave a
    wide range of impressions and for every person
    Rushton induces, it makes this pointless debate
    all too damaging to our society.
  • Todd

81
Student Conclusions
  • Common sense makes his story hard to accept, but
    his methods and behaviors make them all the more
    difficult. Was J.P. Rushton off base in his
    critique of Goulds work? Damn right, he was.
    But then, again, he should be used to being way
    off base. Hes made a career of it.
  • Jason
About PowerShow.com