Permitted truths

lugha

One of my recollections from studying science in school was the curious attitude taken by truth seekers in the middle-ages, in particular, the apparent aversion to using empirical evidence to advance knowledge. I was particularly intrigued by Galileo’s demonstration at Pisa (if it actually happened?) and the fact that nobody had ever thought to drop a couple of rocks off something since the time Aristotle proposed the flawed law.
Presumably, the reason for this aversion was in part due to deference to Christianity and the idea that some (all?) truths were established by the bible and not by what we would now regard as scientific endeavor. Of course such perversity couldn’t happen now surely?
Well, I wonder. I read the now closed “Race and Intelligence” thread and was struck by something. Granted the OP’s contention was well refuted, but essentially because of the deficiencies in the IQ test as a metric, and other factors also. But in a sense that was good fortune. Even if there was some truth in his claim, we would not permit it. Isn’t surely the case that we, as a humane, pluralist society “hold it to be true” that with respect to any desirable or virtuous trait, our measure (even if like IQ, it has yet to be perfected or even developed) will have identical values across races, cultures, gender, sexual orientation etc. In this respect, are we any different that the Church of the middle-ages? In both cases, the contemporary culture imposes constraints on what we may or may not find to be true.

Zombrex

I think a lot of it probably came from the idea that we could reason things out ourselves, we don't need to test things independently to our own reason.

Such an idea seems to be very popular with religious people, often forming the basis of their own religious faith.

Atheist on the other hand tend to trust their own ability to reason something a lot less, relying far more on empirical evidence.

Of course, as your post points out, there are exceptions to this, Galileo was religious and yet sought empirical evidence for certain truths society held.

Dades

Unlike the 'theory' of gravity, there is absolutely nothing good or useful that could come from alleging some "truths". Simply put, what's the point in trying to validate a statistic that is only going to polarise society?

pH

lugha wrote: »

Isn’t surely the case that we, as a humane, pluralist society “hold it to be true” that with respect to any desirable or virtuous trait, our measure (even if like IQ, it has yet to be perfected or even developed) will have identical values across races, cultures, gender, sexual orientation etc. In this respect

It isn't so much holding it to be true, merely not being that interested in any differences, and whatever small (if any) benefit to knowing about these differences is far outweighed by its potential to be hijacked by racist idiots to promote their ideological positions.

Say you find on average there's a percentage point difference in the average score for a "virtuous trait" between group A and B, it tells you absolutely nothing useful. Individuals in both groups score above and below the average.

So it begs the questions why are you interested in the average score of one race versus another? Why not the average score of those who are bald vs those with hair, or men vs women, or left-handers vs right-handers. You can split us up in countless arbitrary groups and go through the motions of calculating an average value in each one, but you've got to answer the question why?

Ickle Magoo

lugha wrote: »

In this respect, are we any different that the Church of the middle-ages? In both cases, the contemporary culture imposes constraints on what we may or may not find to be true.

I would hope it is not culture imposing constraints on what we may or may not find to be true, rather the motivation for seeking to find some minute correlation between race/gender/sexual orientation and intelligence is what modern society finds distasteful.

lugha

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I would hope it is not culture imposing constraints on what we may or may not find to be true, rather the motivation for seeking to find some minute correlation between race/gender/sexual orientation and intelligence is what modern society finds distasteful.

But this is not what we do. If it were, then we would deem it unethical to even seek to answer such questions. But we rarely do. We permit such research to proceed but take a dim view if a conclusion is reached which suggests that the various groups are anything but identical on the characteristic of interest. We can do this of course because as yet, we only have very blunt tools to answer many sociological questions. Most of the rebukes on the race and intelligence thread argued that we cannot answer this question or answering incorrectly, not that we shouldn’t answer it.

pH wrote: »

It isn't so much holding it to be true, merely not being that interested in any differences, and whatever small (if any) benefit to knowing about these differences is far outweighed by its potential to be hijacked by racist idiots to promote their ideological positions.

Yes, of course there is potential for abuse. But again I would suggest, it is not more sensible to decide that asking such questions is unethical rather than make the unsupported suggestion that all groups are equal on all scales? We will likely be in a position at some time in the future to show that such supposition in wrong.

Ickle Magoo

lugha wrote: »

But this is not what we do. If it were, then we would deem it unethical to even seek to answer such questions. But we rarely do. We permit such research to proceed but take a dim view if a conclusion is reached which suggests that the various groups are anything but identical on the characteristic of interest. We can do this of course because as yet, we only have very blunt tools to answer many sociological questions. Most of the rebukes on the race and intelligence thread argued that we cannot answer this question or answering incorrectly, not that we shouldn’t answer it.

I don't know if unethical is the right term, I know few people that would have any motivation or interest in knowing the minuscule differences in intelligence between races, genders and sexualities other than those who wish to use it negatively. Just to put the shoe on the other foot for a minute, can you give me an example of where such knowledge would be useful and why you would rather a possible barely discernible difference in intelligence between races, genders and sexuality was highlighted?

lugha

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't know if unethical is the right term, I know few people that would have any motivation or interest in knowing the minuscule differences in intelligence between races, genders and sexualities other than those who wish to use it negatively. Just to put the shoe on the other foot for a minute, can you give me an example of where such knowledge would be useful and why you would rather a possible barely discernible difference in intelligence between races, genders and sexuality was highlighted?

I cannot give an example of why such knowledge might be useful and I agree, if such knowledge ever did emerge it would likely be exploited by unsavory types. But that says nothing about whether the truth of the matter as to what the difference if any might be between different groups. Truth and usefulness or desirability are different domains. Your suggestion that the difference is miniscule essentially reaffirms my overall point. We do not know if there is any difference, but you assert before we have the tools to answer such a question that when we do have the tools, we will find that the difference is zero or insignificant. Thus, we have decided in advance what answer we want. And here I see a parallel with the middle ages when truth, in some matters, was established apirori by the bible.

Ickle Magoo

lugha wrote: »

....Your suggestion that the difference is miniscule essentially reaffirms my overall point....

Not quite, if there were substantial differences in intelligence between races, genders and people of varying sexual orientation then it wouldn't require in-depth study & analysis, it would be obvious for all to see. The undeniable fact that there is clever & stupid, ignorant and genius in all and every variation would indicate the differences, if they exist, are negligible.

lugha

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Not quite, if there were substantial differences in intelligence between races, genders and people of varying sexual orientation then it wouldn't require in-depth study & analysis, it would be obvious for all to see.

I would suggest that arguing that there are no “substantial difference in intelligence” is incongruent with the view that we do not have a reliable method of measuring intelligence. If we cannot take a measure we cannot know a measure. In any case, I guess we will just disagree on this point. You assert as a truth that there is no difference between certain groups with respect to intelligence (with the exception of course of atheists and believers!;)), I say we find it convenient to regard this as a truth. So let me move the argument to a different place as my point is not specific to race and intelligence. I would suggest, as a fanciful and hypothetical example, that no research would be accepted that argued that a new world order where all, or the majority of world leaders were women, would eventually descend into anarchy. You may argue that it a silly proposition and there is not a shred of evidence to support it. And there isn’t. But any analysis of the merits of such an argument would not, as it should, rest on the evidence, it would be determined by the sociological “truth” of gender equality. Again, I say we begin by asserting what result we want to find, and dismiss any contradictory evidence.

Ickle Magoo

lugha wrote: »

I would suggest that arguing that there are no “substantial difference in intelligence” is incongruent with the view that we do not have a reliable method of measuring intelligence. If we cannot take a measure we cannot know a measure.

I think we have lots of ways of generally measuring intelligence. Educational achievement, IQ testing, intellectual capabilities of races/genders/etc raised within similar demographics would give an over-all picture. If you are so desperate to prove a difference between sectors that you require some kind of metric measure of brain capacity to show the infinitesimal differences that general observation cannot provide, you are clearly looking for a difference and I would question your motives.

lugha wrote: »

In any case, I guess we will just disagree on this point. You assert as a truth that there is no difference between certain groups with respect to intelligence (with the exception of course of atheists and believers!;)),

Eh?

lugha wrote: »

I say we find it convenient to regard this as a truth. So let me move the argument to a different place as my point is not specific to race and intelligence. I would suggest, as a fanciful and hypothetical example, that no research would be accepted that argued that a new world order where all, or the majority of world leaders were women, would eventually descend into anarchy. You may argue that it a silly proposition and there is not a shred of evidence to support it. And there isn’t. But any analysis of the merits of such an argument would not, as it should, rest on the evidence, it would be determined by the sociological “truth” of gender equality. Again, I say we begin by asserting what result we want to find, and dismiss any contradictory evidence.

I don't know how you begin, I tend to base belief on what has got some significant scientific basis, rather than supposition & hearsay - and as such, that belief is liable to change. I guess any hypothesis begins with a particular view point and then works towards showing that it cannot be disproved by any means we currently have at our disposal, it's just a p!ss poor hypothesis if you make up the result to suit yourself and you either ignore all that would dismiss or cannot provide a shred of evidence to support your argument, tbh.