ApostateAbe
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,299
- Location
- Colorado, USA
- Basic Beliefs
- Infotheist. I believe the gods to be mere information.
I am in the middle of writing my own article in defense of scientific racism, as I would like to help kill the taboo against it and cast better light on the ridiculous and common delusion that race is not biological. So it came as a surprise that Time.com beat me to it, because I thought of Time Magazine as a brochure of boring unprovocative conventionality designed for waiting rooms of doctors and dentists. The article is based on a new book by the same author, Nicholas Wade, the former science editor of the New York Times.
http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/
Even better is that the most popular critical review of the book is tempered and reasonable, not blasting the book for its conclusions but for its arguments:
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._nicholas_wade_s_dated_assumptions_about.html
Nicholas Wade seems to get too specific with the speculations about the influence of genetic variations on ethnic variations, so the criticisms of the reviewer seem to hold up. Previous authors defending scientific racism, such as E. O. Wilson, Herrnstein & Murray, J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn, stayed general with their arguments, their arguments are very sound and not as speculative, they were eminent scientists, but not as diplomatic in their writings, and they were met with much more hostility from the public. Nicholas Wade's writing is diplomatic. Maybe this is a turning point, when scientific racism can be more tolerated by the public rather than shouted down.
http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/
Even better is that the most popular critical review of the book is tempered and reasonable, not blasting the book for its conclusions but for its arguments:
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._nicholas_wade_s_dated_assumptions_about.html
Nicholas Wade seems to get too specific with the speculations about the influence of genetic variations on ethnic variations, so the criticisms of the reviewer seem to hold up. Previous authors defending scientific racism, such as E. O. Wilson, Herrnstein & Murray, J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn, stayed general with their arguments, their arguments are very sound and not as speculative, they were eminent scientists, but not as diplomatic in their writings, and they were met with much more hostility from the public. Nicholas Wade's writing is diplomatic. Maybe this is a turning point, when scientific racism can be more tolerated by the public rather than shouted down.