03-08-2017, 08:58 PM
(03-08-2017, 07:52 PM)Odin Wrote: Murray's career is based in racist pseudoscience, he has no ideas worth giving a platform for.
Really? BA from Harvard, PhD from MIT ("deeply respected institutions"), and his most controversial book, The Bell Curve, which only marginally touched on the issue of race as opposed to IQ differences more broadly, was the subject of a special task force by the American Psychological Association, which broadly upheld his findings, only stating that there is no evidence for supposing a genetic component to the 1SD difference between black and white IQ scores in the US. All this, despite the intense political controversy surrounding them, and the overall replicability issues the psychological community is experiencing.
As Steven Pinker (another no-name pseudoscientist, no doubt) points out:
Quote:Irony: Replicability crisis in psych DOESN'T apply to IQ: huge n's, replicable results. But people hate the message.
And he wasn't even there to talk about the Bell Curve. Instead, he wanted to talk about Coming Apart, which specifically addressed only white communities. Not to mention that he was there at the invitation of Middlebury College, and it was a professor there, and not Murray, who ended up being assaulted.
Let's look at Popper again:
Quote:Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
Now tell me, was he talking about the right of the Left to suppress people on the Right, or the right of believers in free speech and rational discourse to stop people preaching the suppression of opposing viewpoints? Who, in this case, refused to listen to rational argument, on the grounds of it being deceptive, and chose instead to answer it with their fists?
I'm disappointed in you. In the college thread on the other board, you condemned these sorts of behaviors, and said only that they were not representative of the Left more broadly. Here we have a riot, where a (probably liberal) professor was assaulted and injured, and your only comment is to insist on "no platform"?
