Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Citation analysis

Immediately available and verifiable information isn't "original" when it's employed in relation to a published argument. Normally it wouldn't be necessary because the editors of an encyclopedia would have professional knowledge of the field, but in this case it's useful for factual statements to constrain interpretation. Making the article less factually informative isn't an appropriate task here.--Nectar 23:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In this context NOR is probably best thought of as "no original thought", which is how it's characterized at Wikipedia:Verifiability. (The addition does meet the requirements of verifiability policy.)--Nectar 00:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're here to report the facts, not for "constraining interpretation". That sounds an awful lot like telling the reader what to conclude from the facts. However, I'd be content to let it go if there is a consensus to do so.--Ramdrake 00:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by using "factual statements to constrain interpretation" is grounding in empirical reality the many and sometimes far-ranging claims that exist in the literature. (We report both claims and facts, but claims are not the same thing as facts.) --Nectar 01:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, two things - 1) the assertion you were making in the footnote is unclear. I'm assuming you were trying to say that the journals you specifically mentioned did not report any criticism of the Pioneer Fund, is that true? 2) Even if they didn't report any criticism of the Pioneer Fund, it hardly makes a noteworthy point - 99.9% of Hindu religious texts don't discuss the implications of Jerry Seinfeld on modern mores, but that wouldn't be a worthwhile cite, would it? I exaggerate, of course, but my point is that unless these journal you cited regularly criticized other funding agents, their lack of criticism of the Pioneer Fund isn't really notable, is it? The fact that a movie critic didn't criticize a given movie may be notable, but the fact that they didn't critique a new non-fiction book on the amazon rainforest wouldn't really mean anything, would it? --JereKrischel 05:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The two journals mentioned are responsible for a great fraction of all published reports in this field. Hence, they would be the place to look for the scholarly treatment of PF. --Rikurzhen 05:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] These two journals are the two that specialize in individual differences psychology/intelligence research and play one of the most prominent roles in determining the course of this area of psychology. American Psychologist, the journal in which the the APA report and one of Flynn's more prominent papers were published in, and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in which some of Sternberg's more prominent papers are published in, also have no mention of criticism of the fund. The point is that, while some authors claim the criticism of PF is quite important, the criticism of the fund hasn't even been mentioned in relevant journals. (A topic's representation in the literature is considered a prominent measurement of its importance.)--Nectar 06:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Have any of these journals had anything critical to say about any funding sources? It sounds as if they are focused (and rightfully so) on the work itself, not the funding sources. If that is true, one wouldn't expect them to criticize the Pioneer Fund at all, and the absence of such criticism shouldn't be seen as notable. Can you cite any criticism these journals have had of any funding source? --JereKrischel 06:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that, while some authors claim the arguments about the Pioneer Fund are important, in the actual field it hasn't been important. (Something that is considered important to a topic would be mentioned in the literature of the topic.)--Nectar 06:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, without a clear indication that these journals have criticized other funding sources, and have specifically not criticized the Pioneer Fund, it doesn't seem to help make your point - it feels almost as if you're trying to prove a negative. I think it might be fair to make sure criticism of the Pioneer Fund is properly characterized, so as not to lead people to believe that critics are geneticists when they're actually psychologists or vice versa, and I think the same sort of clear indication of sources is important (noting that Rushton is not a biogeneticist, for example). Not to venture too far off track, but this kind of thing is very important when comparing the conclusions of Cavalli-Sforza versus the interpretation of Rushton of C-S's work - one is clearly *not* a geneticist.

Am I correct in understanding your concern? That is, that any criticism sources be properly identified as to whether or not they are activist groups, psychologists, geneticists, professors, students, etc? I think we can make sure we properly identify everyone's background, to give readers a clear indication of what qualifications and specialties they have. --JereKrischel 07:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the point is to draw a line between anti-racist or anti-hereditarian activists and the actual scientific field. All that needs to be noted is that, contrary to claims by these authors, the criticisms of the PF aren't important to the field.--Nectar 07:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think making the leap that the criticisms of the Pioneer Fund aren't important to the field is definitely POV pushing. Let the reader decide if they want to make that leap, we shouldn't be making that decision for them. Similarly, although Rushton may only be a psychologist, and not a geneticist, we should let the reader decide if that makes a difference in his credibility.

The real fine line we need to draw, Nectar, on both sides of this, is not to engage in ad hominem attack on sources (even if they do it to each other). Although now that you mention it, a good section on the differences between what geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists think may be interesting - much of the disagreement we have may simply be because of the various interpretations foisted on what we can both agree is real, scientific genetic research. Anyway, I'll ponder how a section like that might be constructed...in the mean time, I think it should be sufficient to clearly indicate, without asserting any conclusion as to credibility, the background of the people making the various assertions (either in the case of Pioneer Fund, or in the case of psychologists interpreting the work of geneticists). --JereKrischel 09:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My wording above was made stronger to make the potential implications more explicit and is different from the wording used in the article. If psychologists on one side of a debate make the same interpretations as leading geneticists on that side of the debate (e.g. Sternberg and Lewontin or Jensen and Risch) the distinction doesn't seem particularly important. In contrast, in the case of the Pioneer Fund and how researchers who accept grants should be treated, there's significant disagreement between the positions of anti-racists and scientists who are strongly on the environmental side e.g. Sternberg, Flynn, and even Tucker.--Nectar 10:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to assert that psychologists and geneticsts have the exact same interpretations, although significant overlap may be there. Especially with such a sensitive field as race and intelligence, we should make things clear. --JereKrischel 17:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason for these claims: 1. that if there isn't criticism of other funding sources in PAID, Intelligence, et al, then there's no reason to mention that they don't contain criticism of PF. 2. that biologists and psychologists are different.

My understanding is that: 1. sometimes it important to write about what doesn't exist -- there are other instances in the lead block. in this case, the fact that PF criticism isn't a regular part of scholarly discourse is important to note. 2. i just don't get it. --Rikurzhen 17:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to explain (I'll use as simple an analogy as I can):

If there are no policemen at the firestation, is it significant to find that there are no policemen from New York at the fire station? No. You possibly could have generalized from the first observation (if it is repreated often enough, that is) that a fire station is not the place you should normally find policemen to start with.

Likewise, if there is no criticism of any source of funding in those journals, (much less of the Pioneer Fund), maybe that's because that's the wrong place to look for criticism of a source of funding, in which case it is not significant that you won't find criticism of the Pioneer Fund, because you won't find any criticism of a funding source in there to start with.--Ramdrake 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I get that idea, but where else but the scholarly journal should you look for such criticism? I did a quick count of the journal references for this article. Here are the top 4 hits:

• Intelligence = 34
• Personality and Individual Differences = 20
• American Psychologist = 16
• Science = 9
• Psychology, Public Policy, and Law = 7

So we're looking in the right place so long as the scholarly literature is the right place to look -- any reason to think it is not? Not finding criticism of PF could mean several things, but one explanation seems obvious. Regardless of the explanation, the fact is certinaly of note. --Rikurzhen 23:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You'd be looking in the right place if you found one criticism of any funding agency in one of those journals. Then, it would tell you such criticism is rare, but that this isn't just the wrong forum. The first place to look for criticism of any agency is of course in the media and... oh wait! There is criticism of the Pioneer Fund there. :) I would think the scholarly litterature would be the wrong place to look for criticism of funding sources, because a rather large number of scientists know their next year's research grant may come from a different source than this year's (happens all the time - been there, done that), so the last thing they want to do is to speak up against a funding agency, as they really don't want to alienate them unnecessarily. So, in fact, there is a perfectly LOGICAL reason not to find such criticisms in the journals where they publish. As a matter of fact, the last time I heard someone criticize a funding agency, it was through the media (a researcher wanting to investigate the popular appeal of creationist debates was turned down because he "didn't provide appropriate proof of evolution" or some such silliness). Like I said, until you find a criticism of a funding agency in one of those articles, it's a fairly safe bet that these journals are not the correct venue for criticisms of funding agencies.--Ramdrake 23:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree. You're suggesting a remarkable kind of self-censorship. In the environment following the publicatin of The Bell Curve, there was plenty of room to snipe at PF. Again, if not scholarly journals then were should we be looking? Keep in mind the article material in question is the result of the literature search, and you're argument is that we shouldn't mention the lack of mention of PF in these journals. --Rikurzhen 00:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're conflating criticisms. Following the Bell Curve, there was some academic criticism (of the data and/or its analysis, in journals) and a lot of social and and political criticism (of the motives of the authors, and to some extent of the data and its analysis, in the media mostly). The only thing you have to do to prove me wrong is to find one criticism of any funding agency in anyone of those journals. Until that is done, your demonstration (that PF has no criticism in the scientific journals) has no control group (existence of criticism of a funding agency in a scientific journal). What I advanced earlier was a possible explanation for the failure to find any funding agency criticism in scientific journals. The hypothesis as to the reason may be right or wrong, but so far the fact remains: the absence of PF criticism in scientific journals means something only insofar as one can demonstrate that these journals are an actual forum for such criticism.--Ramdrake 01:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

According to their Wikipedia articles, several of the Pioneer Fund grantees are on the editorial board of Intelligence.Ultramarine 01:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The same seems to be true for Personality and Individual Differences. I think that the real question is why these journals do not require disclousre of funding in such a controversial field.Ultramarine 01:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, what I'm saying is that I don't need to "prove" anything because it's self-evidently interesting that there's no negative discussion of PF in any of these journals. UL, you could try expanding the search to all of ISI &/or Medline, the result will most likely be the same. --Rikurzhen 02:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There are several articles critical of the fund published in other journals.Ultramarine 02:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of the articles are critical: [1]Ultramarine 02:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like Ultramarine has found sufficient evidence that the Pioneer Fund has been criticized in scholarly journals (American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 39, No. 1, 44-61 (1995) for example), so the assertion that there is no criticism from the scientific community in the field is obviously refuted. That being said, I think we should make sure we clearly identify those people making both claims, and criticisms. If a psychologist is making a claim, it is important to note their background. Similarly with a geneticist. Rather than try to make a point that one type of person feels one way, another group feels another way, why don't we just identify the people making the assertions and critiques, and let the reader judge if that should have any impact on credibility. Certainly, we shouldn't be deciding for the reader what makes one credible. --JereKrischel 05:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

An accounting of what criticism has been published would be great (and requested by me for some time), but AFAIK none of these are journals in the field (text in the article). --Rikurzhen 05:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

link to U.S. google scholar:

Negative reviews:

1. [BOOK] The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund - WH Tucker - 2002
2. " The American Breed": Nazi eugenics and the origins of the Pioneer Fund. - PA Lombardo - Albany Law Rev, 2002
3. The Pioneer Fund: Financier of Fascist Research - SJ ROSENTHAL - American Behavioral Scientist, 1995

The negative review (mentioned in my previous post):

American Behavioral Scientist

Seems to be "in the field" --JereKrischel 06:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That's my #3. There are thousands of "no-name" journals. Has ABS published anything else about R&I? Here's the abstract from this article: Many citations used in The Bell Curve to provide a pseudoscientific veneer for Herrnstein and Murray's academic version of The Turner Diaries for the "cognitive elite" came from advocates of eugenics, whose "research" has been supported by the Pioneer Fund. A Nazi endowment specializing in production of justifications for eugenics since 1937, the Pioneer Fund is embedded in a network of right-wing foundations, think tanks, religious fundamentalists, and global anti-Communist coalitions. This article combines Domhoff's model (1978) of how the ruling class makes public policy, Knapp and Spector's (1991) model of how and why capitalists build racism, and Oliver Cox's (1948) analysis of how and why capitalists build fascism to show that the U.S. ruling class is laying the political, ideological, economic, and paramilitary groundwork for fascism. Liberal reaction to The Bell Curve and the threat of fascism has mainly taken the form of appeasement. History suggests it is time for a different response. --Rikurzhen 07:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Another ABS publication on R&I: The Bell Curve: Too Smooth to be True --JereKrischel 07:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also "in the field":

• The American Journal of Psychology
• Contemporary Sociology
• AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
• International Journal of Health Services
• Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences

That should be sufficient, I think, to make the point. Whether something is a "no-name" journal really isn't something we should be trying to judge, don't you think? --JereKrischel 07:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As per Nectar below, the journal matters a great deal. As does the actual content of the articles. A cursory review finds that these are not the kind of articles to falsify the claim that "the criticism of the fund has not been an issue in the journals in its field". --Rikurzhen 07:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The question isn't 'have journals in general published criticism of the PF,' it's 'have journals that are significant to the field of intelligence research/differential psychology published criticism.' Another description would be 'journals that play a significant role in the direction of the field.' For example, the two secondary journals I cited above [American Psychologist and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology] were selected from notable publications in the publication lists of notable researchers in the field.--Nectar 07:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Nectar, is that "significant to the field of intelligence research" seems to be a subjective POV judgement. Certainly, The American Journal of Psychology, Contemporary Sociology, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, International Journal of Health Services, and Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, all are in the publication lists of notable researchers in the field - perhaps not those that you agree with, but notable nonetheless. I think it's a losing proposition to arbitrate who the "notable researchers" are, and which journals in their publication lists are "notable publications". Certainly, as pointed out earlier, some of the journals mentioned have Pioneer Fund grantees on their boards - certainly enough to quash any criticism that may have otherwise been brought up. Instead of trying to draw an OR conclusion (no journals "in the field, and in the publication lists of "notable" researchers" have criticized the Pioneer Fund, therefore such criticism is less credible), let's just report the facts as they are, and clearly identify who is criticising the Pioneer Fund, and who is making assertions of a primarily hereditarian stance (psychologists/biologists/geneticists/pundits). If we're going to try and make a point that a certain journal deigned to criticize the Pioneer Fund, then I think it's important to note if the Pioneer Fund has significant influence on that journal. --JereKrischel 18:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Let's please be careful. Citations have been introduced here from science journals that criticize PF. When those were introduced, it was claimed the journals were not sufficiently close to the field of study. When more citations were found from journals which one could assume were sufficiently close to the field of study, they were deemed not to be influential or significant enough in the field. That unfortunately looks very much like a tactic called "moving the goal post". What is now required if we are to restrict the list of acceptable journals would be a list of journals in the field by an authoritative author not related to the Pioneer Fund. Otherwise, we'll be running in circles.--Ramdrake 18:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The "goal post" has always been journals in the field, as that's the point that was made in the article. The four journals I've referred to have been demonstrated to be significant to the field. If you can't quantify (quantification is the opposite of subjective) any intelligence researchers - either environmental or hereditarian - who have published intelligence research in those journals than they're not intelligence research journals. Note that Snyderman and Rothman surveyed specialists instead of random figures, so it's not an original concept. It's an extraordinarily bold claim that the specialist journals in which intelligence research is primarily published suddenly lose their position because a portion of their editorial boards are composed of highly-cited researchers WP editors don't like. That's fine to note that portion in the article footnote. (Elsevier's website is malfunctioning, but the editorial board for Intelligence can be viewed in the google cache.[2])--Nectar 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Then, please find a proper cite that says "these are the appropriate journals for the field". Also, once that is done, you would need to demonstrate that these journals accept to publish criticism of funding sources (they may have a policy not to). As for the "extraordinarily bold claim", if journal X has PF fundees on its editorial board, any time an article is submitted to that journal that would be critical to PF would cause those on the editorial board that have ties with PF to be in a potential conflict of interest situation. I don't see anything bold to this statement.--Ramdrake 22:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The "citation" for which journals publish in intelligence research is represented by intelligence researchers, such as Sternberg and Flynn, publishing intelligence research in those journals. Sternberg and Flynn and other environmental editors also sit on the board of Intelligence. According to you, it would be a conflict of interest for such journals to publish hereditarian articles or criticism of environmental positions. Environmentalists like Sternberg most certainly pull out all the stops in their articles that criticize hereditarian positions, but they haven't deemed the sinister Pioneer Fund Conspiracy noteworthy enough to even mention in passing in any of their many articles in these journals. Anyway, this isn't about leading hereditarians not being blacklisted from journal editorial boards, as you would desire, as the other two journals that are significant to this field that I cited above do not have grantees on their boards, AFAIK, but still haven't discussed the PF Conspiracy.--Nectar 22:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What I said is that it would a potential conflict of interest situation for PF fundees on the board of these journals to publish an article criticizing PF. I didn't say anything about an article with a pro-hereditarian or pro-environmental stance. And BTW, we still do need a proper reference (and I mean a litteral reference) as to which journals should be considered "in the field" and which shouldn't. The statement that it is "represented by intelligence researchers, (...) publishing intelligence research in those journals just isn't good enough. Your definition of "journals in the field" seems to basically boil down to about four titles. I'm not sure you appreciate how restrictive a definition that is, for any field of science.--Ramdrake 23:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

(1)The principle you're proposing is that a journal creates a conflict of interest by having editorial board members who take positions on either side of a debate. It's quite normal for journals to have board members who take positions, and in this case there are board members from both sides of the debate. AFAIK Intelligence and PAID have never been accused of bias.

(2) How could a journal be in intelligence research if it doesn't publish intelligence research or any articles by intelligence researchers? I looked some more. Psychological Review has published note-worthy articles by researchers on both sides, and Science and Psychology, Public Policy, and Law are the fourth and fifth most cited journals in this article, but PF criticism hasn't been mentioned in these journals. That brings the tally to 0 in these 7 journals. If you give an example of note-worthy intelligence research in another journal that you want checked for PF criticism, it can be checked.--Nectar 00:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you're asserting that citation in a Wikipedia article makes something note-worthy enough to be included in a Wikipedia article? I'm sorry, but I don't believe your criteria for what a "note-worthy" journal is makes sense in terms of NPOV. Similarly, a journal, such as Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, may not deal with R&I directly, but it certainly is important as an analysis of the field. I think the principle we should stick to, and implement throughout the article, is clearly indicating the source of criticism or assertion, be it a scholarly journal regarding behavioral sciences, or a psychologist re-interpreting the findings of a geneticist. Trying to come up with criteria for what is and isn't "note-worthy", is definitely OR. --JereKrischel 06:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

Ramdrake, citing a journal's publication list is not orginal research according to the definition given at that page:

• "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. . . Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." WP:NOR

--Nectar 13:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, here's the way I see it: you surveyed a handful of publications looking for criticism of the Pioneer Fund. When you found no such criticism (and no other criticism of any other funding source for that matter, AFAIK), you concluded: "I believe these journals constitute the main of the research field's publication space, and as such not finding PF criticism in them means the research field itself is not critical of the Pioneer Fund in its publications." The result tabulation is your OR, and the belief that these journals constitute the main of the research field's publication space is yours (and not objectively demonstrated). For both these reasons, I would say your findings don't have the significance you bestow on them, and don't have a place in Wikipedia unless independently arrived at by a verifiable source.--Ramdrake 14:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be saying it's just impossible to determine whether or not a journal publishes intelligence research. The solution is quite simple, per the above section: if the journal publishes significant intelligence research articles, than it publishes intelligence research. The journals selected are objectively demonstrated to have published significant intelligence research, and more examples can be very easily provided. (Science, though, is a special case compared to the other 6 journals.)--Nectar 21:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK maybe there is a misunderstanding here we can clear up and go forward. I'm quite convinced the journals you came up with are relevant and significant in the field. It is your exclusion of all other journals I have a problem with. If you can demonstrate that the journals below which were also considered somewhat "in the field" really aren't, with a reason why, I'll withdraw this objection.

1. The American Journal of Psychology
2. Contemporary Sociology
3. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
4. International Journal of Health Services
5. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences

These do not specialize just in the field of intelligence, granted, but their scope should include that field, and I know several of them are quite significant journals. So, please demonstrate how they're not relevant to the field (except for their lack of specialization).--Ramdrake 22:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on. I can't be more explicit with you. A consensus version is not defined as your POV-warrior version with the other side removed. I had changed the text to refer to "intelligence research journals," so the journals we're looking for have clear criteria. The burden of proof is on you to show irrelevant journals such as the International Journal of Health Services are intelligence research journals. Showing that is quite simple: find any significant intelligence research published in the journal.--Nectar 22:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[Moved from above] Biochemists can certainly make claims about electrochemistry, but if they don't participate in the research and discussions in electrochemistry then they're not part of the scientific field. The point in our case is that the journals and researchers (on both sides) that determine the course of psychometrics haven't even mentioned this criticism. Re: OR; It wouldn't be practical for Wikipedia to operate under a "all sources are equal and cannot be evaluated" policy.--Nectar 10:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[Moved from above] The discussion of the 7 journals above was a reference to the articles they published, not this wiki article. For example, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology is the journal in which Steele and Aronson 1995 (stereotype threat) was published, and the Sacket et al. 2004 response was published in American Psychologist. If you can provide other journals in which significant intelligence research is published, we can look for discussion of the PF.--Nectar 10:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Define "significant intelligence research". I think it is clear that the journals listed do publish significant intelligence research, and I don't think you can reasonably say, or even begin to "prove" that they don't. Especially the "Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences" seems particularly relevant, since as a meta-journal (of the history of the field), they are more likely to criticize funding sources, and note historical trends one way or the other. I disagree with your narrow definition of "intelligence research journals", and think that unless you can show a reasonable cite that states that your definition is valid and accepted, it simply is OR. --JereKrischel 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[Moved from above]Ultramarine provided the Google scholar results, and I've listed those with negative criticms of the Pioneer Fund. I think the onus is on you to show some cite that clearly states that these journals are not "journals in which significant intelligence research is published". Your definition of "significant" is ambiguous, and a POV evaluation so far, I think. --JereKrischel 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

These are the numbers of articles in these journals that contain "iq" in the abstract or title, compared to a neutral term, "influence" as a rough gauge of journal issue size and frequency (1994-2005). Journals that have published criticism of the Pioneer Fund are in italics.

"IQ", "Influence", and Ratio

1. Intelligence 123, 52, 0.4
2. PAID 102, 242, 2.4
3. Psychological Assessment 29, 25, 0.9
4. Journal of Educational Psychology 15, 74, 4.9
5. American Psychologist 13, 50, 3.8
6. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 12, 263, 22
7. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 9, 18, 2
8. Psychological Review 4, 33, 8.2
9. American Behavioral Scientist 3, 72, 24*
10. The American Journal of Psychology 2, 29, 14.5**
11. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 1, 18, 18

*From Sage Publications; ProQuest gives a different number due to the use of shortened abstracts.

**I only have access up to 2002 for the moment, so this figure is for 1991-2002.

Journals that don't comment on IQ aren't in the field. That's fine; it just means they're in a different discipline. (Their opinion should still get reported in this article.)--Nectar 02:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that instead of comparing the frequency occurence of the string "IQ" with that of a random word like "influence", it be compared with a known common word in abstracts, such as "results" (which should be in nearly all abstracts)? Comparing a target word with a known common word sounds to me closer to a proper control.--Ramdrake 12:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but not finding the acronym "IQ" in the proper proportions in an abstract hardly means these journals (or other journals) are not discussing intelligence (in fact, since there were no ratios of "zero" for those critical, it seems to prove quite clearly the point that journals in the field have criticized the Pioneer Fund). I strongly disagree with your criteria (having "IQ" in the abstract or title), as a method of determining what journals are notable in the field of intelligence research. Certainly your criteria is your own invention, and OR. Or do you have a reasonable cite that states, "One may determine the notability of a journal in the field of intelligence research by measuring the number of times the term "IQ" is present in the abstract or title of articles contained in such journal compared to the term "influence""? --JereKrischel 05:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand much about these topics or science in general. Anyway, here are the number of articles on "intelligence" in the top two of each category of the above journals.

1. Intelligence 283
2. PAID 278
3. The American Journal of Psychology 12
4. American Behavioral Scientist 7

Re:"specialist intelligence research journals identified by our editors as notable." When we have quantifiable and verifiable measures, you don't need to rely on a WP editor's opinion that some journals are intelligence research journals and some are not. Journals that publish a minor article on intelligence once a year are not "intelligence research journals." --Nectar 07:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, may I remind you of WP:NPA? "You don't seem to understand much about these topics or science in general" sounds like an ad hominem if I ever saw one.--Ramdrake 11:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You can interprete it as an "attack" if you want, but the point is you guys are making the Wikipedia process unworkable by consistently not understanding either the topic or the arguments on the talk page but insisting on edit-warring anyway. If you don't have experience in these areas, being POV-warriors isn't a workable or civil approach. --Nectar 12:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we understand both the topic and your arguments; we just happen not to agree with several of the latter. And BTW, I also have some experience in writing science papers. And as far as POV-warring is concerned, if you consider our edits POV-warring, yours are just as much. Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête. Now, please let's get back to discussing the article, not what we know or don't know about science.--Ramdrake 12:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You have determined these metrics, Nectar, out of your own personal opinions. Whether or not a journal publishes minor or major articles on any given frequency is *not* an according to hoyle definition of "intelligence research journals". --JereKrischel 07:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That is wrong. Frequency arguments like the one that Nectar uses are the standard way of evaluating scope and quality of scientific publications. That being said, WP is not the place to make such a pronouncement. We can use it merely to decide how much attention we should give to this argument. And currently we are giving far too much to it, based on several metrics. In this, summary-style, article, the PF funding issue deserves a paragraph under Accusations of bias, at most. (And a sentence, at least. But it certainly belongs there, I maintain that the chapter in Why people believe weird things is the best argument for its inclusion.) More extended coverage can be given in the appropriate subarticles. Arbor 09:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the intro, two sentences and 9 lines are devoted to the criticism of the Pioneer Fund, while at least 7 sentences and 29 lines are spent defending it (including footnotes), thus it may be needed to rebalance both sides. It was already discussed that some criticism of the Pioneer Fund was needed in the intro, and given its weight in intelligence research (especially on the pro-hereditarian side) a small section was also deemed appropriate.--Ramdrake 11:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, to me, appropriate for the introduction would be a half-sentence, at most. Something like "Criticism of R&I research includes accusations of bias based on assumptions about the political ideals of the researchers or the funding agencies." Add "such as the Pioneer Fund" if it makes you happy. The current introduction is too long and detailed anyway and is bound to be cut to pieces next time we submit to Peer Review. There is no way a point-and-counterpoint debate can survive in three first paragraphs of a summary-style article, and the editors trying to fight that war are wasting their time. Write a single good paragraph under Accusations of bias, and write an proper section in the appropriate subarticle. Arbor 11:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As per my comment directly below, I concur with Arbor on this point. I would second his suggestion to replace the lead text block with a sentence. Move the debate to the relevant section of the article. --Rikurzhen 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Evaluating (for appropriateness) and summarizing sources is a "power" (so to say) that WP grants editors. saying what journal do and do not say is within that power. we have good reason (after reviewing the literature) to believe that PF has not been an issue in the journals were intelligence research is commonly published. i have at times asked for a similar summary accounting of where and by who PF has been criticized. such a summary might make an appropriate addition. however, i'll renew my objection that the lead text is dedicating too much space to describing PF (pro and con, but of course neutrality is essential). the amount of space dedicated to PF in the intro is disproportionate to its prominence in the article and importance in the field. --Rikurzhen 07:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Summarizing sources is fine, but arbitrarily determining what is a "notable" journal and what isn't, according to a completely made up metric of "IQ" versus "influence" in abstracts and titles is OR, and POV pushing. --JereKrischel 07:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

JereKrischel, if you have nothing to say please stop wasting our time. Notable is a standard term used in science to refer to influence within a topic. Anyway, note that the term under discussion is "intelligence research." There can't be intelligence research without research on intelligence. A biochemistry journal publishes on biochemistry. An intelligence research journal publishes on the research of intelligence at more than a frequency of 1% of it's articles. The frequency of research of intelligence being written on in a journal can be measured by the frequency of articles that discuss intelligence (because intelligence is a necessary part of intelligence research).--Nectar 23:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable is not a standard term, it is a subjective one, Nectar. "Intelligence Research" certainly includes the journals mentioned with criticisms, albeit not at the frequency which you would like to arbitrate. I think as pointed out earlier, you are moving the bar. Your original point was that people "in the field" did not have such criticisms of the Pioneer Fund. This has been refuted by the examples given. Now you want to marginalize the scientific opinions of people published in scientific journals by asserting that such journals are not sufficiently dedicated to "intelligence research".

Frankly, the point that "intelligence journals that publish research on intelligence at a frequency of more than 1% have not criticized the Pioneer Fund" doesn't really give any useful information to the reader. I've removed the offending section, and hope we can move on from here. --JereKrischel 23:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So the non-offensive wording you prefer is "Journals that devote more than 1% of there content to intelligence research have not criticized the fund"?--Nectar 08:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Or.. what are you talking about? In response to your unreasonable claims, the text in the article was "specialist intelligence research journals." Journals that publish 1% of their content in a discipline aren't specialists in that discipline.--Nectar 08:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, standard English is to refer to quotations from authors in the present tense. [3] --Nectar 08:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with your agreement on the non-offensive wording. I'll make the change. --JereKrischel 15:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't see this. A journal publishing reviews of books doesn't constitute taking official positions on an issue unless they state they're doing so.--Nectar 09:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

These weren't all reviews of books and some journals did take position, so the original sentence is appropriate.--Ramdrake 12:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

'tis not. PF-based criticism is noteworthy, and formulated primarily outside the scientific community. Our description should reflect that. Adding "scientific journals" to the list is misleading because it implies that the specialist scientific community voices this criticism. (I don't understand why you want to peddle an extrascientific opinion in the first place. Moreover, why you insist on giving it the veneer of scientific respectability is beyond me. In any case, you are promoting a highly skewed presentation of an amateur viewpoint. Don't.) Arbor 13:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read above the many criticisms found in various scientific journals (although not deemed specialist journals) about the Pioneer Fund. Part of the scientific community does criticize the PF and this whole area of research, in addition to the extrascientific criticism. Trying to marginalize or totally occult this opposition as "amateur" or "extrascientific" is simply POV.--Ramdrake 13:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write "... and in scientific journals outside the field of expertise" or something like that, I would no longer call it misleading. (Honestly, I don't see how such a qualification makes the statement less denigrating about PF-based criticism.) In any case, I am strongly in favour of moving the entire debate into the relevant subsection, which is why my edit simply removed the attribution to "scientific journals" instead of adding another qualification. I won't make this article even more unreadable by participating in the point-counterpoint-qualificationOfCounterpoint-minuteDetailOfQualification exercise that is currently going on. Arbor 13:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, the debate is getting specious. Since this is a scientific debate with huge social implications, I am also starting to wonder what is the point of drawing such a fine line in the sand between the societal and scientific sources of criticism. It is well-known that scientists in general are not versed in social critic, especially not in science journals, and on the other hand one does not need to be a specialist in the field to level legitimate criticism in this area of research. To me, the distinction is getting more and more artificial.--Ramdrake 14:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, please provide a reference that makes the false statement that a journal publishing either an article or a book review means the journal takes an official position. Thanks for not introducing scientifically illiterate statements into the article.--Nectar 14:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You said it yourself: A journal publishing reviews of books doesn't constitute taking official positions on an issue unless they state they're doing so. Criticism of the Fund was found in some science journals (not directly in the field, granted, but not limited to book reviews). That criticism was just referenced, that's all. As a rule, journals (except newspapers in some occasions) do not take "official" position on anything, but may contain criticism which is usually attributed to the authors. By the same token since journals do NOT take official positions except in rare cases, the absence of criticism likewise is also meaningless. Thank you for clarifying that.--Ramdrake 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not "by the same token" because nobody claimed an absence of criticism in the specialist literature represented official positions on the parts of journals. Wikipedia's job is to represent the literature accurately, which includes the presence or lack of presence of PF criticism in the literature.--Nectar 14:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So, for us to report that a journal does not contain criticism of the PF, nothing special is required, but for us to report that a journal has published criticism of the PF, an oficial endorsement of the criticism by the journal is a requirement? That's a double standard. You know as well as I do that there is presence of criticism of the Pioneer Fund in journals that are peripheral to this specific field of research. But first deeming these journals not significant in the field of intelligence research and then requiring that the journal take official position against the Pioneer Fund is not the right way to quelch the criticism, not to mention a blatant example of moving the goalpost. Please stop doing that.--Ramdrake 14:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we make clear that the absence of criticism in specialist literature does not represent the official position of the specialist journals in question? "Criticism in journals with over 1% of their published articles in the field of intelligence research has not been found, but neither have those journals taken any official stance absolving the Pioneer Fund from any potential wrongdoing"? Would that satisfy you, Nectar? --JereKrischel 00:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is to summarize the literature, not advocate positions. If a criticism doesn't appear in journals in the discipline that would commonly be taken to mean it's not a significant issue in the discipline. Adding "including critiques published in scientific journals" seems a little silly, as scientists are already assumed to publish in scientific journals.--Admissions 06:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientists supporting a topic in journals in normal; it would be notable if scientists had only supported the topic outside of journals.--Nectar 08:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The notable point here is that scientists very rarely criticize a funding agency (any funding agency), whether inside a journal or in the popular media. That criticism of the PF not only exists in popular media but has found its way in some journals is notable, even if the journals in question are only peripheral to the field of research, and even if the journals did not take an official stance criticizing or endorsing the Pioneer Fund. Now, if one wants to make the point that the few journals considered notable to the specialized field of research do not contain any such critic of the Fund, that's fine too. But the existence of such criticism in any journal is in and of itself notable, regardless of all the caveats one wants to append to it.--Ramdrake 12:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nectar that we should summarize the literature, and not editorialize it. Arguing in an editorial tone in a reference, leading the reader to the believe that Ulrich Neisser meant a certain conclusion other than what he actually said, is really inappropriate. I further agree with Ramdrake that if we are going to state that specialist journals with greater than 1% intelligence research did not publish any criticism, we should also identify the criticism that occured in other scientific journals, not so concentrated directly on the field as per the 1% criteria. Our other possible alternative is to remove the assertion of the negative (seeing as the lack of criticism by specific journals that publish > 1% intelligence research really isn't all that important of a point, and quite possibly OR, since nobody has published a list of > 1% intelligence research journals or done that research yet), and remove the specification that scientists who have criticized the Pioneer Fund were published in scientific journals. In either case, it is a logical fallacy to appeal to authority to bolster a position. --JereKrischel 16:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind removing both specifications, as long as we keep the same standard for both issues. It would also make for a more legible text.--Ramdrake 18:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

WP editors aren't so helpless and blind as you would imagine. The citation for the 1% is the journals' article lists. This may seem exotic to you, but a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Citation_indexes confirms the reasonable conclusion. This section is going to need to be both NPOV and scientifically literate, whether you POV warriors like it or not. If we need a third party to comment in order to do that, that's something we can do.--Nectar 18:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, the suggestion here was to remove all references to criticism (or lack of criticism) of the PF from the article. If you want to take this up and call in the WP:Mediation Cabal, I don't mind: let's do it. And this calling us "POV warriors" is very much the pot calling the kettle black.--Ramdrake 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, the citation for the 1% is original research, judging from article lists by a novel, non-standard criteria, what is and isn't "intelligence research", and then compiling, based upon a limited sample, a list of journals. Why not 2%? Why not 3%? Why not define an article on "intelligence research" as one that actually performs a direct study (rather than a study of studies)? Or perhaps define an article on "intelligence research" as one which uses reaction time tests in addition to IQ as a proxy for general intelligence? Unless you can find a reasonable cite that states, "By generally accepted definition, research journals are considered "in the field" if they produce more than 1% of their articles directly on the field based on the title and abstract contents", you're doing OR. --JereKrischel 00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(1)This article is on intelligence. Intelligence research is on intelligence. The word "intelligence" plays a central role in the last two sentences and is sufficient to gauge articles on intelligence research. OK?

(2)Can you agree there is a categorical distinction between general journals that publish 1% of their articles on intelligence, and specialist journals that publish a majority of their articles on intelligence?--Nectar 05:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

1) Judging an article's content simply by finding the word "intelligence" in it isn't sufficient to tell whether that article deals with intelligence. There are of course many single word synonyms, as well as phrases which could mean the same thing. 2) There very well may be a categorical distinction between journals that publish 1% of their literature and 51% or more of their literature in a given category, but can't the same be said about journals that publish 2% of their literature and journals that publish 45% or more of their literature? How far does that gap have to be before it is sufficient, or insufficient? Determining those numbers, and the criteria of words in a title or abstract which indicate an article is "intelligence" related is OR, don't you agree? --JereKrischel 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(1)Intelligence is the most commonly used term in the literature. Articles give a summary of the article in the abstract, so searching abstracts is only searching articles that deal with intelligence in a significant way.

(2)If the only articles we have discussing a topic are around 1%, the hypothetical question of 'what if we had a journal that was around 5%' is not important. What we know is that journals that have a tendency to publish articles on intelligence haven't discussed this issue.--Nectar 05:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

1) Do you have a cite for that? Or would it take further original research to make that claim? 2) Perhaps the only articles we've examined so far critical of the pioneer fund happen in journals which publish only 1% of their articles with "intelligence" in the abstract or title (speaking of which, why not count page length of the actual articles, instead of just the number of articles?), but it is only a hypothetical statement to assert that there are none others at higher percentages, right? What we do know is that scientific journals of good repute have published regarding this issue, and there is no expectation that more highly focused journals which do not analyze the impact of funding sources on bias in research would publish any articles on the matter. Frankly, what we should find is a list of journals that analyze and publish articles on critiques of funding sources (let's say, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences), and use them as a measure of how important and relevant the issue has been to the scientific community. Can you assert that no journals which publish at least 1% or more of it's articles on funding source critiques have ever criticized the Pioneer Fund? It seems to me that you're trying to make a point that really doesn't have a substantial affect on the validity of the criticism of the Pioneer Fund that has been published - just because a select few journals, by whatever criteria you wish to identify them, haven't examined the issue doesn't make it any less relevant, important, or valid, don't you agree? --JereKrischel 06:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

These questions don't seem relevant from an academic point of view. The journals discussed are the results of reviews of the literature. Can you give a brief summary of your argument for the RfC section below?--Nectar 07:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Journals in the field

[Both sides of the debate were asked to give brief summaries of their arguments. Listed 21:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)]

Criticism of the Pioneer Fund (PF) has been limited to some general journals, and hasn't been raised in the specialist journals that deal with intelligence research regularly. The issue is whether the categorical distinction can be made (in relation to another published statement) that the criticism "has not been an issue in the journals in the field." Alternatives have been "journals in intelligence research."

The set of journals which have published the PF criticism have published [in between 2.5% to less than 1%] of their articles dealing with intelligence: The American Journal of Psychology, American Behavioral Scientist, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. In contrast, the second set of journals publish a majority of their articles dealing with intelligence, or have published significant articles in the field: Intelligence, Personality and Individual Differences, Psychological Assessment, Journal of Educational Psychology, American Psychologist, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The number of articles with "intelligence" in the abstract or title in the first two journals of these two sets, for example, are 13 and 7, and 283 and 278 (from 1994-2005).--Nectar 07:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The absence of criticism of the Pioneer Fund in an arbitrary set of journals dictated by an editor is not noteworthy. This arbitrary set of journals may indeed focus on the topic at hand, but that same focus makes them poor candidates for finding any criticism of any funding source. A more noteworthy observation would be to find a lack of criticism of the Pioneer Fund in journals dedicated to publishing critiques of funding sources. This observation has not been made.

The implication trying to be presented as I understand it is the following - 1) specialist journals identified on the topic of "intelligence" are the best authority for information regarding the field; 2) these specialist journals identified have not been observed to criticize the Pioneer Fund; 3) Therefore, criticism of the Pioneer Fund is less authoritative for being observed only in other scientific journals not identified as "specialist". This comes across like a POV push intended to mitigate or discredit criticism of the Pioneer Fund based on an arbitrary criteria. I contend that the implication being presented is incorrect on its very basis - non-specialists science journals are no less authoritative or credible than specialist science journals when it comes to the criticism of funding sources and their potential bias on research results.

One might just as well identify only specialist tobacco research journals, and claim that because they don't contain criticism of tobacco companies, such criticisms are somehow less credible. It has been noted by other editors that the some of the specialist journals identified have close ties to the Pioneer Fund.

The current suggestion on the table is to remove any language that would try to discredit criticism of the Pioneer Fund by appealing to the authority of "specialist" journals, as well as remove any language that would try to bolster criticism of the Pioneer Fund by appealing to the authority of "science journals". It seems more appropriate to make clear which person is making the critique or defense (psychologist, geneticist, political pundit), rather than attaching undue authority or lack thereof due to the particular publication such commentary was printed in. --JereKrischel 08:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond briefly. The identified journals were the results of a review of the literature, which is the only way to summarize the literature. The point is not to discredit an argument, but to summarize the literature accurately so as to not imply statements are more widely supported than they are (by researchers on either side in the field).--Nectar 08:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Two points to add to the RfC:

1. Criticism of any funding agency is usually rare in any journal, and some journals may exclude it out of policy. One possible reason for this is that a researcher openly critical of a funding agency is likely to alienate this organism as a potential future funding source for his research. Of the journals deemed "specialist" in the field, none were found to have criticism of the Pioneer Fund, but neither did they contain any criticism of any other funding agency, which begs the question as to whether these journals would publish any criticism of any funding agency.
2. Journals deemed "specialist" in the field were validated using a citation analysis technique comparing the relative frequency of two words in their abstracts: target word "IQ" and control word "influence". There was no cross-check using another pair of words (such as "intelligence" and a known common word like "results") which could have yielded different results. Moreover, only a few select journals were analyzed this way, which opens the possibility of some journals that have not been tested also possibly qualifying. In addition, no firm reference as to what the proper word ratio would be for inclusion or exclusion of a journal has been supplied. Lastly, the issue was raised at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Citation_indexes as to whether this was an acceptable practice for Wikipedia and not in breach of the WP:NOR rule, and there was clearly no consensus in the feedback, thus making the No Original Research objection a valid concern.--Ramdrake 13:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond briefly. (1)It is certain that anti-hereditarian researchers such as Sternberg would include the criticism in their very strongly worded responses to hereditarian research if they thought it would benefit their criticism. (They've stated they don't support these kinds of criticisms.) Intelligence, which critics Sternberg and Flynn sit on the board of, did publish discussion of the issue in an editorial, but only in the form of criticism of media presentation of the fund. (2)This is a reference to a previous discussion. The description of journals in this section refers to the number of articles they've published that have "intelligence" in the abstract or title. The proposal at WP:NOR to specify in the policy citation indexes as permittable was successful.[4]--Nectar 23:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the response by Nectar:

1. Response to my point 1 (that criticism would be mentioned if it existed) is simply an assumption by another editor, and not substantiated by any cited source. To the contrary, a search on Google Scholar of the words "Pioneer Fund" and "critic" will retrieve about 200 cites, and while there is a certain amount of redundancy in these 200 cites, it will turn up a good number of criticisms of the Pioneer Fund in the scientific press, although whether these are in journals that can be considered specialist journals in the field or not is a current matter of dispute.
2. "The proposal at WP:NOR to specify in the policy citation indexes as permittable was successful." This is just plain incorrect if I read the section in question:

-One editor made the comment this wasn't the right place to bring up this discussion.

-Another (anonymous) strongly hinted this was OR.

-A third one agreed with Nectar, but hinted the majority of editors probably wouldn't agree.

-A fourth editor (involved in the current issue of this page) plainly disagreed with Nectar.

I don't see how that can be construed as a "successful" proposal. Also, for the record, as can be seen by referring above, the word search across abstracts was NOT for intelligence but for IQ. There is a small but meaningful distinction here.--Ramdrake 00:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) The first two of the non-criticising journals published positive reviews of Lynn's history and defense of the fund, so the issue is clearly considered within their scope. (2) I believe reviewing the proposal at WP:NOR shows it was successful. It's been stated in this and the previous section, the figures now under discussion are for the term intelligence. (The disparity is larger for IQ).--Nectar 06:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[To the reviewer: please ask if anything is unclear.]

Comment on the RfC as officially listed

Nectar, I don't think the question you listed in the (public RfC) represents accurately the debate we've had so far. However, the question as spelled out at the beginning of the RfC section material is the right one. I'd appreciate to see them both be the same (i.e. as it is currently reflected above here). Thanks!--Ramdrake 22:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The categorical distinction itself was removed from the article after the disputed terminology was removed, which seems to mean the categorical distinction was disputed. Can the categorical distinction be put back in the article?--Nectar 22:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Then, the way I see it, if commentators find that there is a categorical difference between the two, then we need to report on the presence or absence of criticism in both categories separately. If commenters find no categorical difference between the two, then we must report that "some scientific journals are critical of the PF" without qualification. Is that what you want? If it is, I can certainly live with it.--Ramdrake 23:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The categorical distinction in question was regarding a specific topic - that is to say, is there a categorical distinction between criticism that occurs only in general journals and not in specialist journals. Nobody was debating whether or not there is a distinction that could be made between general and specific journals, but what the nature of that distinction was. I've asserted that the nature of that distinction does not include making criticisms any less important or notable for not being published in a specialist journal. --JereKrischel 23:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

So you claim there is a categorical distinction between general journals and specialist journals, but that there's no categorical distinction between general opinion and specialist opinion? OK. Lulu provided a reference in his Martin quote that there is such a distinction and that distinction is important.--Nectar 01:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not there is a categorical difference between specialty and non-specialty science journals is one thing, but whether one may use this distinction, if it exists, to discount opinion found in non-specialty science journals is the real question. Please don't confuse the issue. And I'd like to see how you can construe the quote from Gardner to vindicate your point that "there is a difference and that the difference is important"?--Ramdrake 01:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) I'm sure your aware non-specialist opinion was never "discounted" or stated in the article to be "less important." However, stating the facts about the literature is allowed, and you regularly argue we should state the facts and let readers make up their minds. Censoring such facts because an editor feels they imply a favored argument is "less important" is not an option.

(2) Martin: "As a consequence, he finds himself excluded from the journals and societies, and almost universally ignored by competent workers in the field." We can be certain that specialist opinion and non-specialist opinion are not treated the same in academia, and simply noting specialist opinion is certainly permissible.--Nectar 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(1)If non-specialist opinion wasn't discounted, why was the reference that the Pioneer Fund had been criticized in science journals removed about 5 times? So, who was censoring whom?

(2)The only thing I see there is the mention of in the field. Those words can have several interpretations: the "field" could be R&I research, psychometrics, psychology, etc. It contains no definite level of specialization. This certainly does not advocate a distinction between "specialist" and "non-specialist" journals.--Ramdrake 13:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

have you read the PF criticism papers?

if not, read them. most appear to be book reviews, historical narratives, etc. in fact, there appear to be only 2 or 3 (including Tucker) straightward critical pieces aimed primarily at PF. what is still not clear to me is that these criticisms have anything but a tangential relation relationship to this article. if that relationship cannot be made more explicit (without violating NOR) then this debate may be moot. --Rikurzhen 08:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As have been stated many times before, the Pioneer Fund is not only important for possible bias. It is an important part of the history of the research, for media image, policy implications, and so on.Ultramarine 14:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

And also, without a clear indication of how frequent or how rare such criticism of a funding source is in science in general, "only" 2 or 3 may indeed be very significant.--Ramdrake 14:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition, this search [5] shows numerous critical articles, certainly not "2 or 3".Ultramarine 14:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason I asked "have you read the PF criticism papers?" is that I skimmed them and found little to support a connection with this article. At various times, I've asked for an argument to be outlined as to how these sources relate to this aritcle, if only for our consideration on the talk page. The point of my comment is not to say that 2 or 3 isn't enough (one reliable, important and relevant source is a good enough) but to say that their importance appear tenuous. A reply that consists of short quotes with precise references in a logical framework is what I'm looking for. --Rikurzhen 20:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the critiques expose potential bias and challenge the validity of Pioneer Fund funded research, I think it has a direct rel ation to this article - R&I research, as funded by the Pioneer Fund is criticized as possibly being biased and inaccurate. How much more of a direct relation can you get, than a direct criticism of any findings made because of bias possibly introduced by your funding source? Would you consider criticism of tobacco industry funded research only "tangential" to the research they conducted? What would be a direct relation in your POV? --JereKrischel 02:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

the critiques expose potential bias and challenge the validity of Pioneer Fund funded research -- where does this come from? who would you cite to support this claim? --Rikurzhen 02:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How about American Behavioral Scientist, 1995? Google scholar lists several others as well. --JereKrischel 03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary from that article of the author's view: This article documents the central role played by the Pioneer Fund in the propagation of academic racist ideology. It shows that the Pioneer Fund is embedded in a network of fascist-oriented foundations, think tanks, publishers, global anti-Communist political coalitions, religious fundamentalists, and paramilitary organizations. The Bell Curve thus comes out of a complex fascist movement whose pedigree is clearly linked to World War II era fascism. This fascist movement is closely tied to and part of capitalist-controlled American political institutions. Fascism therefore is best understood not as a spontaneous "populist" working-class or middle-class movement, but as a politically orchestrated and well-funded instrument of the capitalist ruling class. I'm not sure that the anti-anti-Communist POV of anti-PF/TBC constitutes even a significant minority under WP:NPOV. --Rikurzhen 08:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As per above, I'm aware that there are articles about PF in the lit. What I don't see in them is a connection to "bias" or a challenge to the "validity" of the science which PF has supported on the basis of it being PF supported. (It's a rather precise argument. The mere juxtaposition of criticism of R&I as bad with the criticism of PF as bad would not be support.) In fact, I would find it strange that anyone would attempt to make such an argument given that it would essentially suggest fraud on the part of PF-supported researchers. Per above, what's needed is the outline of the argument with supporting quotes and references. If this can't be provided, I would take this as evidence that there's no support for the existence of critiques [that] expose potential bias and challenge the validity of Pioneer Fund funded research. --Rikurzhen 04:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you've read the abstract and completely missed the point. Asserting that the Pioneer Fund propagates academic racist ideology is a direct challenge to the validity of the research it funds, and a clear assertion of bias (whether causal or coincidental). "The Bell Curve" is particularly vilified, with the assertion that it comes out of...facism. Note that in the context here, "facism" is not compatible with "valid" or "unbiased". I understand that a dry reading, considering "facism" as simply another form of government without any other negative context, can make it seem like nothing is particularly being said, but I think that the argument is fairly clear from the quote...although I'm more than happy to outline it more deliberately if you wish. --JereKrischel 08:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A political and moral condemnation is not equivalent to a scientific one. Evil <> wrong. That's why we have separate subsections to discuss each. I believe the R&I/PF "is evil" POV is sufficiently covered. --Rikurzhen 08:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's exactly your misunderstanding - let me see if I can be more clear stepwise: Valid and unbiased research == good. Invalid and biased research == bad. Fasicm/facist == bad. Pioneer Fund == facism. -> Pioneer Fund research == facist. Therefore, Pioneer Fund research == invalid and biased. The abstract you quoted does not say, "Pioneer Fund is evil but funds unbiased and valid research." The political and moral condemnation is directly challenging the validity of their scientific results and inherent bias - even though it is primarily an ad hominem attack, that is the charge that is being made. They are not criticizing Pioneer Fund grantees for being evil in regards to things like abusing their children, or stealing from babies - they are criticizing Pioneer Fund grantees for being evil in regards to the invalidity and bias in their research and conclusions. --JereKrischel 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The argument you present is not valid. [Stove = hot; Sun = hot --> Stove = Sun is not valid] They are arguing that PF research is the product of Fascism and that it's bad, but bad <> wrong. They are criticizing them for what they regard as the political aims of the organization. A political criticism is not identical to a factual criticism. Again, evil <> wrong. A similar line of reasoning wrt Hitler and Darwinism has recently made news. That Hitler used Darwinism to justify evil doesn't mean that Darwinism is wrong. Factual claims are not made true or false by their political or moral implications. Read the "Utility of research and racism" section, where we've covered this topic in detail. --Rikurzhen 21:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're making a false analogy - the fact that Hitler used Darwinism doesn't mean that Darwinism is wrong...but, the fact that Hitler concluded that other races were inferior, and supported research that would "validate" his POV, certainly is an attack on research conclusions regarding inferiority. Nobody is saying that because the Pioneer Fund supports researchers that use genetics, that genetics are wrong - they're saying that because the Pioneer Fund supports researchers who use genetics to come to "facist" conclusions, the conclusions are invalid and biased. In this case, it is clear that by "fascist" they mean "invalid and biased". Regardless if their published arugment can be shown to be a logical fallacy (ad hominem), that is the argument they are making. We're just stating their argument, not judging its correctness. --JereKrischel 21:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

But I don't think that the formulation you've given is actually their argument. If it was, they should have made it clearer. Merely making a political/moral criticism, which is what they do, is not sufficient for a scientific criticism -- you've done nothing to show how it would (other than to make arbitrary distictions between evolution and genetics on one hand and R&I on the other, begging the question). --Rikurzhen 21:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're again, conflating their method of criticism with what they are criticizing. You are correct that they are not criticizing their conclusions based on scientific means (that is to say, they aren't illustrating how they have miscalculated, or misunderstood data - though others make those arguments), but the *are* criticizing their conclusions, and the *are* asserting that their conclusions are incorrect, and they *are* asserting that their conclusions are biased. I know it may be difficult to understand the concept of criticizing one's research and results by criticizing the funding source (and nothing else), but just try and imagine it in parallel to critics of tobacco industry scientists - the research conclusions are being challenged, even if on an ad hominem basis. I think if you can grasp the concept that it is a political/moral criticism of research results (rather than a political/moral criticism of how they treat their chilren), you'll understand clearly that regardless of the method they use to challenge the validity and bias of their research, they are in fact challenging it. --JereKrischel 06:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

JK, again, I strongly suspect you are misreading. The best solution is (per above) to read them carefully, write summaries of the most notable ones that make use of a few inline quotations to show what argument they acutally make. From what I've read, they say that they are wrong and they say that they are evil, but they don't acutally say that they are wrong because of bias. (For example, the word "bias" doesn't appear in the A.B.S. article linked above. It does say that TBC is a fascist declaration of war providing "anti-working-class ideological cover for the 'Contract on America' and for the systematic dismantling of the welfare state" -- referring to the "Contract with America" and the Welfare reform bill that's recently been in the news because of its anniversary.) --Rikurzhen 06:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Rikurzhen, let me ask you: what do you consider must a paper critical of R&I research (whether it be the PF, the Bell Curve or anything else) contain for you to consider it contains criticism of R&I research or science? I've heard a lot of why you consider the paper under discussion is not scientific criticism (as opposed to social/ethical criticism), but not about what it must contain to qualify as scientifc criticism. I think that would help turning up the right papers.--Ramdrake 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand, but it's partly my fault. My intended emphasis is on what these papers don't say -- they don't seem to say that PF funding causes bias, or a variety of other proposed formulations around "bias" -- not on what they do. Coincidently, what I've read from them seems to be political/moral condemnation, largely directed at the poltical implications sections of TBC. We can only use them to cite support for the arguments they do make. Maybe someone can point out the text I'm missing where they comment on bias. --Rikurzhen 18:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I've read several of those criticisms extensively, and can point to where the accusations of bad science (bad in the sense of scientifically misconstrued, not morally bad), are, and it's actually a bit larger and different than your definition of "bias" (which is incidentally narrower than mine, but that's somewhat beside the point). However, I would absolutely need from you a definition of what you would accept as an argument that the research, or its results, or its conclusions (or any combination of these, as the case maybe) are scientifically wrong. Please note that I'm redirecting the concept of "bias" (on which we have diferent definitions) to the more general concept of "bad science" (on which I'm hoping we can more readily agree).--Ramdrake 18:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just re-read your comment there, and maybe you have a point that the point most of those articles make is that PF-funded research contains a lot of bad/biased science, whether it be the research itself, the results, their interpretation or any combination thereof. The affirmation PF thus biases research is actually an inference, but a totally warranted one under the circumstances. --Ramdrake 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, then perhaps you want to point out some relevant excerpts and explain exactly what you think they are saying. Thus far, I've only seen arguments of the form R&I is bad and thus is wrong. Re: inference -- Ultramarine once argued that a similar inference could be made on the basis of Tucker's work. We have since resolved that it cannot.

Rikurzhen, I still need you to define what you would accept as an argument that the research (or its results or it conclusions) is scientifically wrong. Please humor me: it's the third time I'm asking this question.--Ramdrake 12:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since the Pioneer Fund does not do the science directly, as it funds researchers, we must turn to criticism of Pioneer grantees to see solid accusations of what I call is bad science.

This is a criticism of the poor science and misrepresentation of data of a prominent Pioneer Fund grantee, Richard Lynn. The criticism is by Leon Kamin. [6]

Lynn's 1991 paper describes a 1989 publication by Ken Owen as "the best single study of the Negroid intelligence." The study compared white, Indian and black pupils on the Junior Aptitude Tests; no coloured pupils were included. The mean "Negroid" IQ in that study, according to Lynn, was 69. But Owen did not in fact assign IQs to any of the groups he tested; he merely reported test-score differences between groups, expressed in terms of standard deviation units. The IQ figure was concocted by Lynn out of those data. There is, as Owen made clear, no reason to suppose that low scores of blacks had much to do with genetics: "the knowledge of English of the majority of black testees was so poor that certain [of the] tests...proved to be virtually unusable." Further, the tests assumed that Zulu pupils were familiar with electrical appliances, microscopes and "Western type of ladies' accessories."

In 1992 Owen reported on a sample of coloured students that had been added to the groups he had tested earlier. The footnote in "The Bell Curve" seems to credit this report as proving that South African coloured students have an IQ "similar to that of American blacks," that is, about 85 (the actual reference does not appear in the book's bibliography). That statement does not correctly characterize Owen's work. The test used by Owen in 1992 was the "nonverbal" Raven's Progressive Matrices, which is thought to be less culturally biased than other IQ tests. He was able to compare the performance of coloured students with that of the whites, blacks and Indians in his 1989 study because the earlier set of pupils had taken the Progressive Matrices in addition to the Junior Aptitude Tests. The black pupils, recall, had poor knowledge of English, but Owen felt that the instructions for the Matrices "are so easy that they can be explained with gestures." Owen's 1992 paper again does not assign IQs to the pupils. Rather he gives the mean number of correct responses on the Progressive Matrices (out of a possible 60) for each group: 45 for whites, 42 for Indians, 37 for coloureds and 28 for blacks. The test's developer, John Raven, repeatedly insisted that results on the Progressive Matrices tests cannot be converted into IQs. Matrices scores, unlike IQs, are not symmetrical around their mean (no "bell curve" here). There is thus no meaningful way to convert an average of raw Matrices scores into an IQ, and no comparison with American black IQs is possible.

The remaining studies cited by Lynn, and accepted as valid by Herrnstein and Murray, tell us little about African intelligence but do tell us something about Lynn's scholarship. One of the 11 entries in Lynn's table of the intelligence of "pure Negroids" indicates that 1,011 Zambians who were given the Progressive Matrices had a lamentably low average IQ of 75. The source for this quantitative claim is given as "Pons 1974; Crawford-Nutt 1976." A. L. Pons did test 1,011 Zambian copper miners, whose average number of correct responses was 34. Pons reported on this work orally; his data were summarized in tabular form in a paper by D. H. Crawford-Nutt. Lynn took the Pons data from Crawford-Nutt's paper and converted the number of correct responses into a bogus average "IQ" of 75. Lynn chose to ignore the substance of Crawford-Nutt's paper, which reported that 228 black high school students in Soweto scored an average of 45 correct responses on the Matrices--HIGHER than the mean of 44 achieved by the same-age white sample on whom the test's norms had been established and well above the mean of Owen's coloured pupils. Seven of the 11 studies selected by Lynn for inclusion in his "Negroid" table reported only average Matrices scores, not IQs; the other studies used tests clearly dependent on cultural content. Lynn had earlier, in a 1978 paper, summarized six studies of African pupils, most using the Matrices. The arbitrary IQs concocted by Lynn for those studies ranged between 75 and 88, with a median of 84. Five of those six studies were omitted from Lynn's 1991 summary, by which time African IQ had, in his judgment, plummeted to 69. Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity. Lynn is widely known among academics to be an associate editor of the racist journal "Mankind Quarterly" and a major recipient of financial support from the nativist, eugenically oriented Pioneer Fund. It is a matter of shame and disgrace that two eminent social scientists, fully aware of the sensitivity of the issues they address, take Lynn as their scientific tutor and uncritically accept his surveys of research.

That's just one. I can find many more. So, to recap, there are accusations of a moral nature against the Pioneer Fund and the research it funds, but also there are scientific objections of bad science, which you will find associated principally with the researchers whose work has been funded by the Pioneer Fund, rather than associated with criticism of the Pioneer Fund by name. Put together, and you can link the Pioneer Fund with accusations of funding bad science.--Ramdrake 17:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Journals criticizing funding

Re:these journals don't contain any criticism of any funding agency Journals do discuss any relevant issues. For example, the PF was discussed in Intelligence, but only in Weyher's editorial criticizing media presentation of the fund. Funding biasing researchers would certainly be relevant.--Nectar 01:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Many other journals have criticized the fund. Regarding Intelligence, it has several Pioneer Fund grantees on its editorial board.Ultramarine 14:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

too much space in intro is spent on PF

there's no mention of PF in the best reviews:

• the APA statement
• the WSJ statement
• the 2005 PPPL articles

There's Tucker, Lombardo, and a variety of reviews of The Bell Curve which mention PF. There's the Gottfredson incident, and the SPLC classifcation as a hate group. Anything else? Which of these relate directly to this article? I'm afraid that too much is currently being made in the intro out of very little published substance. --Rikurzhen 08:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Well, it started with just the mention that the funding from the Pioneer Fund somehow biased the field or some of the scientific results in the field. Then, a tangible quote was requested as to how and why it could bias the results, and that was added. Then,a whole lot of explanations were added saying the Fund wasn't so bad, that fundees had to defend themselves from media opinion, etc. So yes, it kind of spiraled out. I think what's impotant to mention is that the fund has been criticized for a number of reasons. The rest is only counterarguments trying to say the fund isn't that criticized (in a very restricted sample of journals), that most of those criticizing it aren't specialists in the field, etc. Do we really need all that wording to try to compensate for stating a fact (that the Fund has been criticized)?--Ramdrake 14:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

just the mention that the funding from the Pioneer Fund somehow biased the field or some of the scientific results in the field -- But the quote doesn't seem to say that at all. To cause "bias" is to cause "bias" in interpretation. To fund a line of research is not "bias". However, the main question I raised is whether the PF criticism deserves the prominent treatment it receives given that we're scarping far-flung individual sources to piece together a criticism -- we're not simply getting it from a review article. --Rikurzhen 21:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

For the critical side of the edit, I used a total of two citations. I wouldn't call that "scraping together far-flung individual sources". What may look more like the expression you used is the amalgamation of sources used to try demonstrate that the Pioneer Fund criticism is restricted to some circles, and/or does not exist in the journals of the field, and that overall its influence can be considered a "weak plus". And I'm using the word bias in the largest sense possible, so feel free to substitute another more appropriate word if you feel that it differs from your definition of "bias".--Ramdrake 22:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Lovely quote

I read a lovely quote from Martin Gardner yesterday:

[Some cranks] are brilliant and well-educated, often with an excellent understanding of the branch of science in which they are speculating. Their books can be highly deceptive imitations of the genuine article — well-written and impressively learned.... [C]ranks work in almost total isolation from their colleagues. Not isolation in the geographical sense, but in the sense of having no fruitful contacts with fellow researchers.... The modern pseudo-scientist... stands entirely outside the closely integrated channels through which new ideas are introduced and evaluated. He works in isolation. He does not send his findings to the recognized journals, or if he does, they are rejected for reasons which in the vast majority of cases are excellent. In most cases the crank is not well enough informed to write a paper with even a surface resemblance to a significant study. As a consequence, he finds himself excluded from the journals and societies, and almost universally ignored by competent workers in the field..... The eccentric is forced, therefore, to tread a lonely way. He speaks before organizations he himself has founded, contributes to journals he himself may edit, and — until recently — publishes books only when he or his followers can raise sufficient funds to have them printed privately.

FWIW, I encountered it in this review of Wolfram's New Kind of Science. Seems like a pretty good description of the PF gang to me. LotLE×talk 14:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a denial of all intelligence researchers, represented as a criticism of the Pioneer Fund. Less than 1/5 of the members of the editorial board of Intelligence have received grants from the PF (5 out of 26, including the journals' editors, who have not received grants).[7] Staunch environmentalists like Sternberg and Flynn are also on the board. Less than 1/10 of the editorial board of Personality and Individual Differences have received grants (3 out of 40).[8] The Pioneer Fund has seized the imagination of Wikipedia editors like nothing else. To put to rest any claims that the statements in Gardner's quote apply here, these researchers' highly cited articles have been published in too many journals to list, but include APA journals like Journal of Consulting Psychology, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Psychological Bulletin and American Psychologist (ask for citations). Gardner's quote ("almost universally ignored by competent workers in the field") states what Wikipedia editors have neglected to acknowledge, that the opinion of researchers in a field (e.g. Sternberg) are in standard academic practice given preferential treatment to the opinion of researchers who don't have experience in a field. (What this does not mean is that opinion outside of a field is necessarily given little or no importance.) --Nectar 20:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, you asked for a comment, you've got a comment... What else can I say? To me, Lulu's comment seemed more like a specific denunciation of the Pioneer Fund than something flung at the intelligence research community in general. At least, that's how I see it.--Ramdrake 21:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I have no idea what the point is supposed to be about the board of Intelligence; certainly there are researchers interested in intelligence as a concept who do not have the whole racialist agenda and cliquish self-reference of the PF folks. When someone like Lynn simply cannot be published outside of white supremecist vanity presses for his latest book, it's probably pretty telling of the fact he's a crank.

In truth, if this were really an encyclopic article rather than an advocacy piece, the first sentence would be something along the lines of "Race and intelligence is a pseudo-scientific movement to advance racialist thinking, and to justify a social policies of racial discrimination". But I know it's hopeless to dream of this article ever resembling something an NPOV encyclopedia would contain. LotLE×talk 02:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay dokay... the quote is from a view of Wolfram's New Kind of Science -- about mathematics, not R&I. I strongly recommend this totally OT thread stop here and move swiftly to the archives. --Rikurzhen 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, Gardner's comment was not itself directed at Wolfram. The reviewer, Cosma Shalizi, merely felt it happened to fit Wolfram's work; just as I happen to feel the description happens to fit PF's work (and therefore most of what is in this article, which is mostly just advocacy of the PF grantees' agenda). I haven't looked up Gardner's original context... he may have had someone specific in mind, but he obviously wrote it in a way to be more generally applicable. LotLE×talk 14:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering this is the first comment generated from Nectarflowed's RfC, I would strongly suggest the whole thing be kept here at least until the end of the RfC. Sounds only logical to me.--Ramdrake 04:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is all we can expect from a RfC, then why bother? Lulu's comment is entirely useless, offering no insight to the question of the RfC. It cites his personal (and fringe) view of the subject, making suggestions that are obviously unactionable. --Rikurzhen 05:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think it offers an insight on the question of the RfC, just a very different one than was expected.--Ramdrake 12:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not my comments "offer insight" (I had no idea there was an RfC... if so, why is the discussion here rather than there?), it would be extremely unseemly and insulting to selectively delete my comments but not others. Obviously, I would expect my comments to be archived at the same time as other contemporaneous ones, but not on one editor's judgement of the lack of worth of their content. There are quite a few pro-PF comments in this thread, and generally in this discussion page, that I think fail to "offer insight"... but I'm certainly not going to selectively delete all those comments I unilaterally judge to lack worth. LotLE×talk 13:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think an RfC is always a good thing, if only because it offers us a chance to see a subject from a different perspective. Whatever that perspective is, even if that perspective is diametrally opposed to ours, I wouldn't want to dismiss it out of hand as "fringe" or "without insight". Lulu's comment reiterates what I felt as a first impression when I first came to the article, that in some respects, this looks more like glorified pseudoscience than real, debatable and improvable science. It reminds me of "creation science", which starts from a preordained conclusion, and looks for "evidence" that fits and/or supports the conclusion.--Ramdrake 14:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Until someone can demonstrate what I'm supposed to take away from the exchange that has to do with writing the article, rather than trashing its subject and its editors, I'm finished with this thread. If anyone feels like being productive, there's an unanswered thread here that's on topic. --Rikurzhen 14:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe and simply, that people don't have to agree as to what an article ideally should look like to agree to work together on improving it little by little?--Ramdrake 14:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The (only?) way to improve this article is to read the literature, stick to summarizing what's been published in reliable sources, and maintain adherence to WP:NPOV in the strongest possible way. As per the thread I highlighted, I don't believe the literature is being properly consulted on the PF topic. I suspect that I understand the series of events which led to this situation, and the only recourse I see is to read the literature and stick to summarizing what it actually says. --Rikurzhen 17:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess the problem is that the determination of what sources are considered "reliable" is the subject of POV. The assertion that criticism of the Pioneer Fund is inherently unreliable is just as POV as asserting that any research that they fund is inherently unreliable. Let's just clearly state that the criticisms have been made, by reliable sources which are not definitive but merely representative, and make sure we clearly state that the Pioneer Fund funded research is also generally reliable sources which are not definitive, but merely representative of a certain POV. So long as we don't assert that anything is definitive (especially in the context of such a contentious subject), we abide by NPOV. The problem I see is when people want to arbitrarily define their POV as both reliable and definitive, rather than merely reliable and representative of a given opinion. --JereKrischel 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I meant reliable in terms of WP:RS to exclude partisan web sites, etc. Professional publications are certainly reliable. Notable of course is another matter. What matters most is that the actual content of these papers has been examined carefully. They shouldn't be glossed over and then used to support a claim that they might actually not. --Rikurzhen 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Professional publications are not "certainly" reliable - I think in fact, the argument being had is over which professional publications count as "reliable". Although perhaps we should agree on terminology first. "Reliable", if it is to include both Pioneer Fund researchers, certainly should include their detractors. "Notable", I would argue clearly includes Pioneer Fund critics. And insofar as carefully examining papers, I think you run into several issues here - part of the argument against folk like Rushton, for example, is that they have taken others' works (Cavalli-Sforza), and glossed over them and used them to support claims they actually don't. One might argue that since Rushton did the glossing, and not a WP editor, his gloss is allowed...but then the same would be true of anti-hereditarian folk who glossed over things as well. I am strongly supportive of the idea of making note of the glosses made by pro-hereditarian folk, and making clear their contradiction with their original sources - I think much of the concern over this article is regarding "glossy" support of pro-hereditarian positions. --JereKrischel 21:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this thread has made progress towards communication. Consider the problem as I've described it in the thread I linked. --Rikurzhen 22:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

moved from accusations of bias section

This has included accusations that funding from the Pioneer Fund (which according to the Southern Poverty Law Center "has funded most American and British race scientists, including a large number cited in The Bell Curve"[9]) supports only research that "tends to come out with results that further the division between races... by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another The Pioneer Fund has been strongly criticized by anti-racist groups and some scientists and journalists. Also, prominent critic Ulric Neisser states that the fund's contribution has overall been "a weak plus". On the other side, it is asserted that misguided political correctness has led to large-scale denial of recent developments in the human sciences.

---

based on the discussion above, it appears that this text should not be part of the "accusations of bias" section. i've moved it here to preserve it. i believe most of the data is contained in the subsequent "pioneer fund" section, without the attempt to link PF to bias. --Rikurzhen 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Based on the discussion so far, it seems that this text is highly relevant to the accusations of bias section. Particularly the recent cite of Lynn's poor science and link to the Pioneer Fund shown by Ramdrake. Reverted back to inclusion. --JereKrischel 21:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

For the record, same objections as JereKrischel. The accusations against the PF-funded science range from ideological/moral to purely scientific, and may have been made against the fundees more prominently than against the fund per se, especially the accusations of bad science. That would be normal and one certainly can't disconnect the two, or pretend there is no connection. I believe at this point the connection has been more than amply demonstrated. I'll ask again: what more do you need?--Ramdrake 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Then we're back to square 1. I see nothing in Kamin's text that Lynn is wrong b/c he is a PF grantee. It is a WP:NOR violation to build such an argument. We're also treading on WP:LIVING if we construe these various authors statements as such. --Rikurzhen 21:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. The resoning goes: The PF is wrong because it funds bad/biased/racist science (bad in the sense of scientifically bad). How can it be demonstrated that it funds bad science? By looking at the detailed comments of a critic of such science. So, instead of trying to turn this on its head and say that you don,t see how Lynn is wrong because he is a PF fundee, try to see it this way: PF funding is bad because it funds people whose results (and I'm quoting from above) tends to come out with results that further the division between races... by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another by using methodologically unsound science.--Ramdrake 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The text in from this section that is most problematic is:

This has included accusations that funding from the Pioneer Fund ... supports only research that "tends to come out with results that further the division between races... by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another"

That says:

"accuation" ... "Pioneer Fund" ... "research" ... coincidence ... racialism/segregation ... justify racism.

An alternative reading is simply that PF supports R&I research, which the author thinks is evil It doesn't say: the influence of PF is to bias researchers and hence their research results are compromised --Rikurzhen 21:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you suggest we rephrase a direct quote to avoid offending your sensibilities? Also, it's already been discussed and established that the Pioneer Fund has funded the majority of R&I researchers. So, I don't think I'd dare call it a coincidence anymore.?--Ramdrake 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to rephrase, as a question this time: is systematically funding ideologically and scientifically biased science the same as imparting a bias on a given field of science? I say emphatically, yes.--Ramdrake 21:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You begged the question. Nonetheless, the answer to the question of whether these authors are accusing researchers of scientific bias is "no". --Rikurzhen 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the section reads "accusations of bias" rather than "accusations of scientific bias". So ANY type of bias forces a "yes" to the answer, not just scientific bias. Which does remind me that I still need you to define "scientific bias" by opposition to "bias" in general. I'd like to know the definition I'm expected to work with, as like any other guy, I just hate battling windmills.--Ramdrake 22:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, but I mean functionally. "Is a researcher's scientific judgment compromised?" None of the sources I have seen make such a claim. They make a variety of other claims, which are not sufficient us to conclude that this is what they really mean. --Rikurzhen 22:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, then, can you concede that asnwering yes to another question: "Is a researcher's ideological views compromising the correct interpretation of the data?" is also a case of bias, not the same kind of bias as what you're referring to above, granted, but certainly bias nevertheless.--Ramdrake 22:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that has nothing to do with "accusations of bias". None of these papers, including the quote used in the text, appear to make an argument for PF causing bias. The word "coincidence" is as strong as this quote appears to draw the connection (it doesn't say "cause"). You could substitute "association" if you prefer, I mean them interchangably. --Rikurzhen 21:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this sure sounds like an accusation of ideological bias, at the very least unless you can prove to me otherwise.--Ramdrake 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless I can prove that you're misreading...? Set the material aside for a while, clear your mind as best as possible, and then reread the source(s). --Rikurzhen 22:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the original text from which the quotation is taken:

While acknowledging a need to respect the two professors' academic freedom, Keith Booker, president of the Wilmington, Del., chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, says that "this research is being done in the name of white supremacy." He says the Pioneer Fund supports only research that "tends to come out with results that further the division between races...by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another."

This is a very strong and very specific claim, which is different from the implication of an "accusation of bias". It also comes from a source who is not in a position to be able to make judgements about the science. --Rikurzhen 22:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So "Is a researcher's ideological views compromising the correct interpretation of the data?" is a question germane to bias, but the affirmation: the Pioneer Fund supports only research that "tends to come out with results that further the division between races...by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another." is not germane to bias (when we know the systematic "results" and interpretations of people like Lynn and Rushton, just to name a couple). I'm sorry but I strongly disagree.--Ramdrake 23:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

PF tends to support research that produces result X does not mean that PF causes the research to always produce result X. If that's what was meant, it could have be said. The speaker did not go so far as to make that claim, and it would be inapproriate for us to conclude that he did. --Rikurzhen 23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You're using a false straw-man here, Rikurzhen - PF only supports research that tends to produces result X is what is stated, not PF tends to support research that only produces result X. The two cases are very different if you think about it for a minute. Furthermore, nobody has ever stated that PF causes the research to always produce result X, what has been stated is that the Pioneer Fund supports only biased researchers - the cause of the researcher's bias is unknown, but it seems the Pioneer Fund selectively supports those with bias. Bias does not always force a specific result, but it can make the results invalid. --JereKrischel 01:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I did misspeak, but it doesn't make a difference. However, you have begged the question here: the Pioneer Fund supports only biased researchers. --Rikurzhen 01:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That is the quote: He says the Pioneer Fund supports only research that "tends to come out with results that further the division between races...by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another.". I think you're assuming that I'm defending the validity of the criticism - on the contrary, I'm merely stating that the criticism has been made, and that others have made a link between Pioneer Fund supported research, and invalid and biased results. We can argue all day about whether or not the criticism is valid, true and accurate - but it is beyond argument that the criticism is made, don't you agree? --JereKrischel 05:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In the argument, you substituted results that further the division between races...by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another. with biased researchers. This, of course, begs the question of whether that's what's meant. The original source appears to be talking about racism, not "biased researchers". --- There's a discussion on the talk page of WP:NOR which may address the heart of the problem. Primary sources, not secondary sources, are the only ones being used. This tends to lead to WP:NOR violations. In this case, I don't see anything about "bias" in the quotes being offered. All I see is discussion of "racism". Without a secondary source, this question of differeing interpretation of primary sources suggests a WP:NOR problem. --Rikurzhen 06:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia offers this as part of its definition of Bias: A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for (sic) having a preference to (sic)one particular point of view or ideological perspective. So, saying that the PF supports only research that tends to come out with results that further the division between races... really fits the definition of bias. Most people will agree that racism is a form of ideological/social bias. And I would like to warn you against going down that alley about using mostly primary sources: a massive part of the scientific argumentation in this article is based primarily if not almost exclusively on primary sources as well, and it's been contended many times that several key arguments look like original research.--Ramdrake 13:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There's sufficient strength to the claim to see a charge of "racism", but not "bias" in what's written. That is, the NAACP president appears to be saying that the research is motivated by racism. The article cites primary source, but is written primarily from consultation secondary sources (see the external links section). Are there secondary sources which discuss PF in connection with bias? --Rikurzhen 18:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this has gone on long enough. I think it can be said that the comment we've been citing back and forth is tantamount to an accusation of bias, either directly or through it being an accusation of racism (which itself is an ideological/social bias). This doesn't need yet another quote, yet another source to show the PF has been accused of supporting only research with a specific agenda in mind, science which has been described with a number of epithets: "bad", "lousy", "misrepresenting the data", "misconstrued" and I'm missing more than a few tastier ones. In clear, what I'm saying is that whether you call it racism and I call it bias makes no difference, as racism is a type of bias (or is it your contention racism isn't a bias?) We could put it to a straw poll, if you wish?--Ramdrake 18:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree this debate has gone on long enough, and I doubt that merely continuing this debate would resolve the problem. If you read the entire "controversy" super-section and sub-articles, you will see that comments about racism and comments about bias are fundamentally different. The racism charge is reflected, for example, when Sternberg (2005) accuses Rushton of making poor choices of research projects. The charge of bias is leveled by Pinker, Whitney, et al that the debate is being suppressed by a bias towards environmental determinism. Do you see the difference? Ramdrake, as far as I can see, the only possible resolution is to present a secondary source to make the argument for you. --Rikurzhen 01:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The only difference I see is that racism is a particular type of bias (belonging in the family of ingroup biases. At this point, I think the demonstration has been done that the PF has indeed been accused of bias (whether this bias is a general one or specifically racism is beyond the point). I'd say let's call a straw poll on this: Should racism be considered a type of bias?--Ramdrake 11:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)