Content deleted Content added
PaleoNeonate (talk | contribs) →Response and criticism: Restore source |
→Response and criticism: Restoring. Block quotes are not idea, but without it this was far, far too vague to be a meaningful summary of the source. |
||
Line 39:
==Response and criticism==
A 1995 article by [[Joseph L. Graves]] & Amanda Johnson was highly critical of the scientific basis on which ''Mainstream Science on Intelligence'' rested. The article stated that the statements in ''Mainstream Science in Intelligence'' {{blockquote|...certainly fall in line with general Euro-American impressions of race and intelligence. The problem, however, is that none of the ideas these psychometricians support have any relation to legitimate scientific inference. Even though individuals like psychologist [[J. Philippe Rushton]] have published monumental treatises to support the claim of Nordic racial superiority, and despite the flamboyant approaches of [[William Shockley|Shockley]], [[Arthur Jensen|Jensen]], [[Richard Herrnstein|Herrnstein]], and [[Charles Murray (political scientist)|Murray]], there remain only two ways the psychometric syllogism can be deemed acceptable-either: (a) one has little or no knowledge of the broad areas of scientific method, statistical reasoning, population studies, quantitative genetics, developmental physiology, neurophysiology, environmental toxicology, sociology, educational psychology, economics, and history required to adequately comprehend the issues involved; or (b) one has no desire to examine the facts of this problem objectively.<ref>{{harvnb|Graves|Johnson|1995|pp=279–280}}</ref>}}
In a posthumous article in 1996, [[Donald T. Campbell]], a former president of the [[American Psychological Association]], included his own analysis of the ''Wall Street Journal'' statement, previously drafted as a letter to that newspaper.<ref name="Laosa 1996">{{harvnb|Laosa|1996}}</ref><ref name="Campbell 1996">{{harvnb|Campbell|1996}}</ref> Campbell first remarked that:
| |||