Egalitarianism noun 1. the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Lie noun 1. an intentionally false statement. Scientific Misconduct noun 2. action that willfully compromises the integrity of scientific research, such as plagiarism or the falsification or fabrication of data. Fraud noun 1. a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities. "mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds" synonyms: impostor, fake, sham, charlatan, quack, mountebank; swindler, gonif, snake oil salesman, fraudster, racketeer, cheat, confidence trickster; informalphony, con man, con artist, scam artist "they exposed him as a fraud" Character Assassination noun 1. the malicious and unjustified harming of a person's good reputation. In a previous discussion Taxonomy26 claimed that Dr. Joseph L. Graves Jr. has repeatedly lied about the existence of biological races within the human species and misrepresented the position of Sewall Wright on the concept of race. Graves is an evolutionary biologist and reputable scholar with noteworthy academic achievements, honors and fellowships. He is widely known for his opposition to Scientific Racism including debating proponents within the scientific community, participating in academic and media presentations to educate the public about human genetic variation and opposing racism on social media. Graves fits the definition of an Egalitarian both as a political activist and as a scientist. The purpose of this thread is to investigate the claim that scholars such as Joseph Graves (Egalitarian Scientists) are Noble Liars. The author of the video cited by Taxonomy26 called Graves a Noble Liar citing the ancient Greek Philosopher Plato who considered a noble lie to be a lie told by the social elite that benefits the public. In other words they lie to the public because they believe that have a just cause i.e. the public needs to be deceived because they can't "handle the truth." This charge has been made against many Egalitarian scientists who deny the existence of biological races including Stephen Jay Gould, Ashley Montagu and David Suzuki publicly as well as intelligence researchers such as Richard Nisbett, Eric Turkheimer and James Flynn who oppose racial hereditarianism. I once emailed Joseph Graves himself about this very subject asking what his position was on the claim that he and other scientists deny the existence of races because of an Egalitarian bias and political agenda. This is what he had to say: The definitions at the top of this post are presented to outline what I understand to be the charges made against Graves and other Egalitarian scientists. A lie is an intentionally false statement. When you lie you are saying something that you know isn't true (vs. being misinformed). Scholars with a reputation for lying or conducting dishonest research are known as scientific frauds. Graves has made this criticism of proponents of Scientific Racism calling them quacks. For example he called Rushton a quack in private conversation with me, in his published statements, debated him in an academic setting and wrote rebuttals to his research which I documented and summarized in previous debates. My challenge to opponents of Egalitarian Scientists is to provide evidence that Graves or any scientists you believe are liars (noble or otherwise) have actually lied in their published statements or public statements in order to defend their positions on the existence of biological races or the denial that racial differences in IQ have a genetic basis. I stand by my position that Graves did not lie about Sewall Wright. Graves' positions on biological races and the cause of group differences in IQ is also supported by scientific consensus which was established in official statements by scientists representing organizations in relevant fields including: - The American Psychological Association - The American Anthropological Association - The Genetics Society of America - The National Academy of Sciences In addition to Joseph Graves I have cited at least 40 scholars on this subject in defense of my position so opponents can take their pick among that list of which they consider to be frauds. Saying a scholar is a fraud is one thing. Demonstrating that they are is another. So if you believe any Egalitarian Scientist is a fraud here is the challenge: 1. State your reasoning. 2. Provide Evidence. 3. Cite a reputable scholar or scholars qualified to speak on the subject who agree with your opinion. Failure to meet the above criteria will be dismissed as character assassination. All 3 of my criteria were met by Dr. Graves in his criticism of other scholars. It is only fair that opponents meet the same standard when they debate. I encourage all members who read this thread to also vote in the poll. Additionally I have informed the author of the Youtube video Taxonomy26 posted of this thread and will provide him a link via private message after I post the thread. The Youtube author posts as ApostateAbe on Talkfreethought.org where I have debated him in the past. He has a reputation for civil and intense debate so hopefully he accepts my offer to join this board and contribute to this thread.
When you try to claim environment has a large impact on population IQ and pretend that 50/50 is the general rule when science has long gone shown that high environmental impact on IQ is in toddlerhood and decreases to minimal come adulthood, you're a liar. When you write a book trying to debunk race but you construct and attack a personal definition of race which is a bizarre form of raising the bar, you're a liar. Joseph Graves fits both of those. And an "egalitarian agenda" is racist when it flies in the face reality and collectively blames an entire demographic of people for unequal average IQs. To have an "egalitarian agenda" is to also pollute the discussion with politics and not address the science without outside ideological influence.
This is rather funny, and Unwittingly a Put down of Egalitarianism by EgalitarianJay. 'Egalitarian Scientist' is 'Agendizing' their work. It's very much like another oxymoron: "Creation Scientist", who SIMILARLY deny even more of Evolution. 'Liberal Creationists'/Egalitarians/Egal 'Scientists' just demand Evo of any signifigance stopped 200,000 years ago... and ONLY in humans! Basically, the "just melanin" clowns. `
The word Egalitarian is in my name for a reason. Rather than claim to be "anti" something I am pro-equality. I much more prefer to call myself an Egalitarian than an anti-racist. I am against racism but what do I actually stand for? Equality. Treating people fairly regardless of differences. The only people who think Egalitarian means biological sameness are semi-literate morons who don't know how to open a dictionary and read the proper definition. But that's ok because I helped you out with that. The real clowns are the academic racists. The proponents of Scientific Racism who destroy their careers and reputations promoting racist pseudoscience while the rest of their world laughs at them, shakes their head and moves forward. Science has left your ideological world view in the dust and society is much more Egalitarian minded than it was even 20 years ago never mind before the Civil Rights Movement.
Yeah this tactic on the part of Joseph Graves is dishonest: Rowe, 2001 "Graves' push for abandoning the racial concept partly depends on his using a definition of racial group that is extremely restrictive, requiring that races have '...hereditary features shared by a group of people and not present in other groups' (p. 5). However, the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary, which he offers on the following page, emphasizes race as a genealogical line, a lineage, and offers that races differ '...in the frequency of hereditary traits' (p. 6). Racial groups are like a large extended family; people in them share a common ancestry, are somewhat inbred, and share some physical resemblance because of their common genes. Natural selection has produced marked phenotypic differences between racial groups; but large numbers of neutral genetic markers can be used to identify lines of ancestry. Graves seems to ignore the trait frequency concept entirely. Dutch caucasians (the tallest in Europe), and Japanese Asians differ in mean height because of their different genetic ancestries. That their height distributions may overlap does not invalidate a racial group concept. Similarly, two racial groups could have the same mean on an hereditary trait, but different variances. In some places, Graves' effort to debunk race falls wide of the mark."
The author of this book review David C. Rowe was a signatory on the article Mainstream Science on Intelligence written by Linda Gottfredson, a Pioneer Fund Grantee. David Rowe https://cals.arizona.edu/fcs/emeritus/david_rowe Legacy Leader, Family Studies and Human Development Dr. David Rowe was recognized internationally by numerous disciplines, ranging from human development to molecular genetics. After receiving a B.A. from Harvard University and his Ph.D. from the University of Colorado, Dr. Rowe joined the UA in 1988. He published 170 papers and 3 books and is known for his seminal work on blending behavioral and molecular genetics and twin studies on antisocial behaviors. Dr. Rowe received a CALS Research Award and an UA Extraordinary Faculty Award. "I remember this review quite well. Rowe did a great job of mischaracterizing my book. However I also remember seeing this as a sign that my work was on the right track. You know your greatness by the vehemence of your enemies." - Joseph Graves He's right. Rowe's description of Grave's definition of race is inaccurate. Graves identified 4 biological definitions of race used by evolutionary biologists, population geneticists and anthropologists: essentialist, taxonomic, lineage and population. Rowe described the essentialist model when Graves actually uses the taxonomic and lineage model noting that the population model does not fit human genetic variation and can be used to define as many population groups arbitrarily as you want. The definition used by Joseph Graves is supported by mainstream scientific consensus. Scientific Consensus Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. List of Scientific Organizations representing Scientific Consensus supporting my sources: 1. The American Psychological Association 2. The American Anthropological Association 3. The Genetics Society of America 4. The National Academy of Sciences 5. The American Institute of Biological Sciences
That's a genetic fallacy and has nothing to do with his points. Also, you seem to be posting the same generalized standard-issue style post as a response to a number of posts by different people without addressing specific points in the posts that you are supposedly rebutting. Again, you bring up Rushton without anyone bringing him up or arguing his points.
You can be wrong an not be a liar, especially in science. Science is constantly changing and being updated as new evidence is presented.
Linda Gottfredson's association with the Pioneer Fund is well-known and no it is not a genetic fallacy to point out that his name is signed in support of the document. It is. That's just a fact. Make of that what you will. The point of the Lieberman quote was to show the consensus of scientists on the definition and validity of racial classification. Rushton has nothing to do with my point. He's part of the quote and I'm not going to edit out his name for your sake which would make absolutely no sense. Aside from Rowe's name appearing next to Rushton's in the list of signatures for that article I am not saying he is wrong because of his association with Pioneer Fund Grantees, only bringing that up as a point to be suspicious of his agenda. Graves is the one who called him an enemy. Maybe they have some history. The fact is that he misrepresented his views on race in the book and I proved that. I have the book. Graves' comments via PM and in scientific papers are consistent with what he said in the book about the definition of race. Maybe Rowe was misinformed but either way he was WRONG so your characterization of Graves as dishonest based on Rowe's review is incorrect. True and that is what I said in the opening post. To prove someone is lying you need to show that they made an intentionally false statement (e.g. Saying something they KNOW is not true). Being misinformed is not the same thing as lying. So far no opponent of Egalitarian scientists have demonstrated that they are biased to the point of considering them Scientific Frauds. Graves' reputation as a reputable scholar is intact.
This post is not worth reading. It is 100% genetic fallacy and does not address the science given in any single post anywhere on this thread or on this forum. Sounding ideological alarm bells is still not an argument. I am not interested in personal attacks against anyone. genetic fallacy n. A fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.
Bias is also not the same as lying. Bias is a preconceived notion of the world that may or may not be supported by data. Bias can affect scientific studies by scientists subconsciously fitting the data to their world view instead of the other way around. If can also be done consciously, but that would be called lying. Also, one can have their reputation sullied by carelessness and inattention to bias.
That's hilarious and ironic considering you accused Joseph Graves of a racist Egalitarian agenda in your first post in this thread. You are free to refuse to read the post as I am to dismiss your source as not credible nor his criticism of Graves' work valid. I showed that his criticism was invalid whether you accept that or not. PSEUDOSCIENCE appeals to false authority, to emotion, to sentiment, or to distrust of established fact. A high school dropout is accepted as an expert on archaeology, though he has never made any study of it! A psychoanalyst is accepted as an expert on all of human history, not to mention physics, astronomy, and mythology— though his claims are inconsistent with everything known in all four fields! A show business celebrity swears it’s true, so it must be. A physicist says psychic Smoori Mellar couldn’t possibly have fooled him with simple magic tricks, although the physicist knows nothing about magic and sleight of hand. Emotional appeals are common: “If it makes you feel good, it must be true.” “In your heart, you know it’s right.” “Follow your bliss!” “Use your intuition!” Pseudoscientists are fond of imaginary conspiracies: “There’s plenty of evidence for flying saucers but the government keeps it secret.” They almost always argue from irrelevancies: “Scientists don’t know everything!”— but perhaps we weren’t talking about everything, maybe we were discussing the evidence for the tooth fairy and Santa Claus! - Rory Coker
This is a complete non-response. Your sole attack against several people hasn't been to rebut aspects of their work that are disagreeable but rather genetic attack. I again pointed this out and you completely changed the subject to a deflection. Again, you showed a two-sentence whine by Graves calling Rowe names rather than saying what specifically was wrong with Rowe's verbatim cite including page number of Graves' definition of race. In that, nothing thus far has been offered.
I showed an email by Graves outlining why he dismisses the existence of biological races in humans which is consistent with what he said on page 5 and 6 of his book The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium which Rowe cited but he misrepresented. You ignored counter evidence against the claims of your source. Your attack on the scientific integrity of Joseph Graves was addressed and dismissed based on the standard I set in the opening post.
Yeah so you're still not addressing why the specific verbatim quotes from Rowe from specific numbered pages from Graves' book were "misrepresented." I'm sorry but Graves saying "misrepresented" without clarifying is a cop out on his part, especially when Rowe cited page numbers and specific blocks of text to validate what he was saying. This is like Nisbutt's lame email personally attacking Lee after having his junk mass market paperback demolished in a scholarly fashion. This is just too sad to watch.
"He's right. Rowe's description of Grave's definition of race is inaccurate. Graves identified 4 biological definitions of race used by evolutionary biologists, population geneticists and anthropologists: essentialist, taxonomic, lineage and population. Rowe described the essentialist model when Graves actually uses the taxonomic and lineage model noting that the population model does not fit human genetic variation and can be used to define as many population groups arbitrarily as you want." - EgalitarianJay Maybe you should get a copy of the book yourself? Or check out Google Books. You can see the full pages for 4, 5 and 6 from that link where Graves discusses the traditional definition of race, the problems with dictionary definitions and the advances in the biological sciences that test biological definitions of race. What is actually written is consistent with what Graves said to me via email. Rowe mischaracterized the content of the book as Graves' definition of race is not restrictive. He addressed multiple definitions of race to identify a scientific definition that is testable by biological science. Rowe spoke as if Graves were only referencing the essentialist model when he addressed all major biological definitions of race and how they differ from social definitions of race used by society. Observed in proper context I clearly responded to your citation of Rowe with a valid defense of Graves' work including a response from him on the book, an email from him on this subject and now a link to the actual text from the book which you can read for free (I have the physical book on my book shelf but I have things to do today so I will not have time to scan or copy text for you).
