Raghu writes: >> David, >> Don't you see how utterly pointless your question is? Considering that >> it is impossible to define either race or intelligence without a >> measure of subjectivity and arbitrariness, and considering also that >> so much evil has been committed in human history on the basis of this >> question, wouldn't you agree that the decent thing to do is to avoid >> asking the question? Is it so hard to acknowledge that there are >> certain things we will never be able to never ask or answer? >> >> I mean what is next, are we going to debate whether God exists, >> because James Watson gives an opinion on the subject, and James Watson >> is an Expert?
You ask a really difficult question. This was a critical issue for Leo Strauss -- the whole notion of esoteric writing necessitated by the dangerousness of the philosopher asking fundamental questions. On the one hand, I agree that common decency and civility require that certain things not be said. On the other hand, if governments make policy decisions that are based upon certain assumptions that are simply not factually correct, those policy decisions are going to have unintended consequences that make things worse, so it is practically impossible to ignore these questions. Look at the gotcha moment of the day: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/24/AR2007102402716_pf.html. David Shemano
