Talk:Race and intelligence (potential for bias)

In http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murray0905.html Charles Murray discusses the "bias" issue. Elabro 17:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

All accusations of bias listed here are stupid. This is a matter of scientific observation and analysis that is not based on anyone's opinion but objective and observable data. Let's pretend that we can admit that the researchers are biased. So what? Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Whether the theories are right or wrong only has to do with the theories themselves, focusing on the people who make the claims is just irrationality. But subarticle is only about accusations and presents them without POV there seems to be nothing wrong with the article. Yid613 | Yid613 01:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

How can accusations of misconduct be stupid? If true they seriously affect data validity. The article R and I bias certainly needs a defence section though. --Davril2020 01:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say accusations of miscondunct are stupid, I said accusations of bias are stupid. The latter are a logical fallacy that attempts to defeat a claim using assumptions and ignoring the merits of the claim itself. Yid613 | Yid613 02:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you interpreted my statement regarding All accusations of bias listed here as referring to all accusations listed here than it is my fault for not being clear enough and I apologize. I was not referring to everything listed here, rather to the specific accusations of bias. In that case, I think the misunderstanding concerns the title and the article's contents: accusations of scientific misconduct are not the same as accusations of bias. Yid613 02:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Accusing the accuser
I removed the following passage: If one wants to look into the faults of the SPLC, he or she is free to look at the article in question. The only relevent information here was that the Fund was accused by the SPLC of being a hate group, under whatever criteria they had. One is free to investigate the process in which the Fund became a "hate group" to the SPLC. Attacking the character of the accuser by telling of improprieties and whatnot is not only a weak argument, it is a sign of weakness on the part of the accused, it shows that the accused is no longer able to argue on principle and must resort to such attacks. --OneTopJob6 00:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "However, the SPLC itself has been accused of exaggerating the threat of racism in order to increase fund-raising revenue and of wrongfully applying the term "hate group" to legitimate organizations. In 1994, a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative report of the SPLC found evidence of racial discrimination and finanical impropriety."


 * It would be a very good idea to mention their methodology. SPLC is a pretty respectable group & almost surely makes this sort of information easily available.  As for your removed text, yes, I don't see how SPLC's finances are remotely relevant to this article, but the accusations of exaggeration are relevant IF supportable by specific examples (in the SPLC's article).  JeffBurdges 07:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it all about the Pioneer fund?
I respect the SPLC quite a bit, but a whole article on their opinion about the Pioneer fund is a POV fork of the Pioneer fund article. This article should be refocused on the wider fact that there is a bias against funding any research which may yield inconvienient results. The Pioneer fund's influence is a conseqeunce of that bias. JeffBurdges 07:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias
This article is supposed to be about accusations of bias. Instead it is a thinly veiled defence of the scientists who conduct this sort of work. Let's talk about the biased and unscientific methods these charlatans use, it's what the article is supposed to be about isn't it? Alun 11:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree, this article is mostly a rebuttal.futurebird 20:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Recentism
The title makes those who have pointed out bias sound whiny, as does the subtitle "Complaints of persecution." This article should be called something like "Potential for bias" since, especially in the historical context, bias isn't just a possibility but a nearly universal fact. Modern research that is regarded as biased only by some should be covered in other articles to avoid the implication that it is biased.

It seems that some material from other articles that is critical of the genetic hypothesis has been shunted here. futurebird 20:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyril Burt
The partly-genetic researcher Cyril Burt has been accused of fraud.[2]

i don't think burt was a "partly-genetic researcher" in the r&i sense. his alleged fraud was about twins. W.R.N. 06:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably best not to use the moniker "partly-genetic" anywhere. --JereKrischel 07:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the correction is even true. Burt isn't cited in R&J (2005). In TBC he's cited wrt the scandal regarding the heritability of IQ and not again. In Jensen (1998) he's cited similarly to TBC, with a footnote saying that Jensen (1974) discusses the Burt affair. Jensen also notes that the effect on a meta-analysis estimate of rMZA is only .006 different w/ or w/o Burt's data. If it's true, it would seem to need a citation and attribution. --W.R.N. 03:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * --JereKrischel 15:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not the kind of "cite" that the context would suggest. It's the same as saying that opponents of IQ cite Mao Zedong, who caused the deaths of tens of millions. An accusation needs to be attributed to the accuser and spelled out explicitly. --W.R.N. 23:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're asking. The accusers are spelled out in the cite (Tucker)...are you asking for more specificity as to who uncovered his fraud?  It's more like saying, "proponents of miscegenation cite the words of Strom Thurmond, who himself had a mixed race child". --JereKrischel 08:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)