More On The Race-IQ Brouhaha From Cato And Slate

Here's Will Saletan's third and last article at Slate.

Noah Millman responds in detail at American Scene in The Sound of a Dam Breaking.

At Cato Unbound, social scientist Eric Turkheimer writes:

“When the theoretical questions are properly understood, proponents of race science, while entitled to their freedom of inquiry and expression, deserve the vigorous disapprobation they often receive.”

Which raises the question, if Eric Turkheimer were ever to discover anything that would support race science realism, he would do what with it, burn it? Couch it in such high-flown philosophical language that you wouldn’t be able to figure out what he meant? Publish it while vigorously disapprobating himself?

Hasn’t he just wrecked his credibility as an objective scientist? Shouldn’t he be ashamed of that, rather than proud of it?

Turkheimer goes on:

“Why Race Science is Objectionable

“If I may address my fellow Jews for a moment, consider this. How would you feel about a line of research into the question of whether Jews have a genetic tendency to be more concerned with money than other groups?”

My observation over the last 25 years has been, going back to Stephen Jay Gould's Mismeasure of Man that while most of the talk is about the white-black IQ gap, among those who take the lead in demonizing realists, most of angst, anger, and underlying agendas are due to the Jewish-Gentile IQ gap. Of course, quite a few of those demonized, such as Richard J. Herrnstein of The Bell Curve, are Jewish, too.