tigerbengalis wrote: > Tim--try to maintain your composure and take a breath and see how you twist this debate using roughly the same m.o. that Macdonald does. No one here, nor any of Macdonalds critics, are saying "the conclusions he has reached are just too terrible to contemplate." Do you have a quote indicating anyone saying that, or are you (like Macdonald) just making it up as you go along?
This ties in to major debates about race within sociology and biology and ethology. There was an excellent article about this in the "Millenium" issue of Scientific American (December 1999) by Frans de Waal that describes just how intense the debate has been between those who acknowledge the importance of genetics and race as factors influencing human behavior and those who do not. In one incident he describes how a sociologist literally poured a glass of cold water over the head of E.O. Wilson, the founder of sociobiology school, after a talk. He also vividly describes the shocked and outraged reactions he personally experienced in the 1970's when he would present evidence for a biological basis for differences in behavior between males and females. The role of race as a factor influencing behavior and intelligence is even more sensitive and controversial. You could consider the reactions to Rushton's and Jensen's work on IQ, for example. These are areas where the general public has moved far ahead of academia. Most people are very comfortable now with the idea that there are genetic and biological bases for human behavior, and accept this as established fact (quite appropriately in my view). Not so in academia, where there are still howls of outrage over such ideas. Much of the outrage over MacDonald's work is par for the course for anyone who accepts these simple facts of life. The reason for this major disconnect is obvious. If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Everyone thinks immediately of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers, and thinks that we are moving perilously close to a scientific justification. Very understandable that the mind would just shut down at that point! Tim Howells Likewise, no one here, nor any of Macdonalds critics, have said Macdonald "has to be discredited and his work has to be rejected." Do you have a quote from anyone indicating this imperative? Nor is anyone "shutting their eyes," in fact, clearly Macdonald is receiving a response. Your lament that the "truth" is being ignored (rather than an unscientific thesis of a bigot is being rejected) is simple demagoguery. > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > TV dinner still cooling? > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. >
