Unfortunately, the “essential unity of the human species,” noble concept though it may be, is a cosmic or moral axiom rather than a scientific principle. Guarding science against abuse begins with making empirical observations accurately and reporting them scrupulously, even when the data cast doubt on our most cherished beliefs and aspirations. No intellectually honest writer would say, “Some have speculated that Kenyans might have, on average, longer, thinner legs than other people,” any more than she would say, “Some have speculated that Pygmies might be, on average, shorter than other people.” These are verifiable facts, not tendentious conjecture.
He reviews several books, and he argues against the approach of making some beliefs sacred rather than contestable.
To me, the essay illustrates how much easier it is these days for a non-Progressive than a Progressive to write about race without getting tied up in intellectual knots, contradictions, or racism.
To me, the essay illustrates how much easier it is these days for a non-Progressive than non-Progressive to write about race without getting tied up in intellectual knots, contradictions, or racism.
Did you mean
To me, the essay illustrates how much easier it is these days for a non-Progressive than [a] Progressive to write about race without getting tied up in intellectual knots, contradictions, or racism. ?
+1
Corrected. Thanks
The essay is very long exploration of a simple point: Angela Saini is the modern champion of Blank Slate-ism.
Considering that Steven Pinker (author of The Blank Slate) is progressive, I’m not sure the Nurture-Only vs. Both-Nature-AND-Nurture divide maps to Progressive vs. Non-Progressive world views. In the article, William Voegeli misrepresents Noam Chomsky as an obvious fellow traveller of Angela Saini. I don’t think this is true. Chomsky can rightly be called the father of the Both-Nature-AND-Nurture camp as it is applied to language and cognitive ability which I think Pinker describes in detail. Also, Chomsky’s support of free speech is unambiguous given his controversial position in the Faurisson affair. Nonetheless, Chomsky is convinced that the United States is a hegemony whose influence is mostly negative on the world stage.
Pinker is ambiguous about his politics. Robert Wright wears his politics on his sleeve. My question still troubles me: why are Steven Pinker and Robert Wright “neoliberal” rather than libertarian? The Robert Wright question is relevant since he was called out a few days ago by Matt Johnson in Quillette.
It almost seems like both neoliberals and libertarians are convinced of the evil of big government but in different realms; neoliberals in the abuse of American power globally (i.e. imperial America) and libertarians in the abuse of big government domestically.
Voegli’s Review of Thomas Sowell’s book from last year is worth reading.
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/thomas-sowells-inconvenient-truths/
“These are verifiable facts, not tendentious conjecture.”
I concur with this sentiment. But to play devil’s advocate for a moment…
How exactly does Voegeli know that Kenyans have, on average, longer and thinner legs? If he’s like me, he believes this because he watches the New York City marathon each year, and it is dominated by Kenyans with long, thin legs. I know you recognize the shortcomings in this sort of reasoning, but it is surprising how blind we can be to selection effects. I don’t doubt that it would be possible to construct a valid survey that told us about the length and breadth of Kenyan legs, relative to those of others… but I am skeptical that such a survey has ever been done. (Okay… observational medical studies? But wouldn’t sickly, thin-legged Kenyans present themselves to doctors more often?) Until I see that survey, I will continue to wonder whether the New York City marathon heuristic is driving this belief in Voegeli and others.