Re: Growth, Wealth, and Race

[Ole J. Rogeberg]

A question related to the issue of race and abilities:

Having followed some of the similar debate on IQ and race following the 
Bell curve book and Goulds "mismeasure of man", it strikes me that many 
participants in the debate (and often the most committed ones) fail to 
separate the "positive" and "normative" aspects of the question. Those 
working on the "positive science" question of whether there are measureable 
differences between, for instance, the cognitive skills of different 
"races" which have a genetic origin, are immediately accused of promoting a 
policy of racism. Yet this does not follow, as far as I can see.

In fact, the intense attack on anyone suggesting that there are measurable 
differences due to genes, and the claim that there is a necessary 
connection between this finding and a policy of racism, should be frowned 
upon by anti-racists. After all, the world is what it is, and if there are 
differences due to genes (which arguments such as those made by David at 
least suggest the *possibility* of), then these will someday be discovered. 
If those opposing racist policies have publicly committed themselves to the 
claim that the policy of racism is wrong *because* there are no differences 
between the races, then what? Would they approve of racism? Of course not.

So my question is: Are normative and positive issues (believing in 
differences and supporting racist policies) more confused and mixed in the 
debate on race than what we find in other debates? And if so, why? Is there 
a "rational" reason for this?

Ole J.