Absolutely. But few honestly debate him that I've found. Mostly he's portrayed as an old, malicious dinosaur trapped in his sense of white privilege. Or they dismiss his social scientific approach as fouled by white assumptions and a corrupt epistemology of logic and objectivity.
Absolutely. But few honestly debate him that I've found. Mostly he's portrayed as an old, malicious dinosaur trapped in his sense of white privilege. Or they dismiss his social scientific approach as fouled by white assumptions and a corrupt epistemology of logic and objectivity.
I remember when Bell Curve came out. Conservatives ate it up because it said black people are stupid and everyone with an education pointed out his abuses of statistics and it was widely believed that he already had his conclusions and played with statistics to back them up.
In interviews he sounded pretty mild, even earnest, but, well, you've read Gould.
Absolutely. But few honestly debate him that I've found. Mostly he's portrayed as an old, malicious dinosaur trapped in his sense of white privilege. Or they dismiss his social scientific approach as fouled by white assumptions and a corrupt epistemology of logic and objectivity.
I remember when Bell Curve came out. Conservatives ate it up because it said black people are stupid and everyone with an education pointed out his abuses of statistics and it was widely believed that he already had his conclusions and played with statistics to back them up.
In interviews he sounded pretty mild, even earnest, but, well, you've read Gould.