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.
