[ExI] [Bulk] Re: IQ and beauty
danust2012 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 7 20:53:16 UTC 2015
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:08 AM, rex <rex at nosyntax.net> wrote:
[S. J. Gould]
> As I'm sure you know he doesn't give an analysis.
Probably not. I've always felt he was more of the double standard type:
he'll find confirming evidence/analyses for his position and disconfirming
for the positions he's against, but never test his position or allow those
he's against much of a benefit of doubt.
>> Gould was a very incompetent scientist with a bully pulpit.
I don't know about 'very' but the bully pulpit thing definitely got the
> He claimed others fudged their data, but later examination showed
> Gould was the fudger and the original work he attacked was correct --
> his talent for writing enabled him to achieve an undeserved status in
> popular science books. Pros saw him as a fake with a PC agenda (e.g.,
> _The Mismeasure of Man_) from the beginning.
As pernicious was his view of Non-Overlapping Magisteria with regard to
Sample my Kindle books via:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat