Talk:Race and intelligence (Accusations of bias)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

[edit] Accusing the accuser

I removed the following passage:

• "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."

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)

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)

[edit] 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)