This has been bugging me for awhile now, so let's get this straight people. If you're gonna throw out the Ad Hominem card, please know what it means.

The various types of argumentum ad hominem are logical fallacies used to counter an argument of an opponent solely by changing the topic to a personal attack on that opponent.

Simply attacking someone or pointing out that they are contemptible is NOT an ad hominem fallacy. One must be using such an attack to avoid factually countering a given claim.

Many of you will notice that the people who shout this out the loudest and most often are people who say things like "you are ignorant of this topic" or "obviously you don't know what you are talking about" instead of directly rebutting the pointed arguments of their marks, excuse me, fellow fraysters.

Classically, these are in fact argumentum ad personam attacks, which have nothing to do with the validity of the point being made. It is a logical fallacy to believe that because someone is commenting on something outside of their field of expertise, such comments will automatically be wrong. Ironically, a number of our "race realist" friends have accused others of ad hominem attacks in the very same phrase as they themselves are engaging in one. This is not surprising, as the "race realist" websites conduct crash courses to teach their recruits how to argue this issue.

Why, you may ask, is it then not ad hominem for myself and others to point out the racist ties of Rushton, Lynn, Taylor, Sailer and their brethren? Depending on how it is phrased, it could, in fact, fall into the category of ad hominem circumstantiae as it questions the bias of the people making an argument without dealing with the argument directly. This can also be a "guilt by association" argument as well. The deciding factor is what the poster is trying to say with such an attack. If we were to say that these people are racists, and therefore, solely on this basis, their arguments are automatically worthless, we would be making an ad hominem attack.

However, to introduce bias, untrustworthiness, or motive for disingenuous behavior into an argument that also directly challenges the factual assertions of say Saletan or Rushton, is not only not ad hominem, but is standard practice in logic, debate, and legal proceedings worldwide.

The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.

Thus, to point out the fact that Rushton heads the Pioneer Fund (an organization created to promote white supremacy), has appeared at racist conventions alongside David Duke, Don Black and other klansmen, and has longstanding personal friendships with neo-nazis... within the context of a multifaceted debate on his methodology and untrustworthiness as an expert on anything remotely genetic... while being an attack, is simply not an ad hominem logical fallacy. (despite what David Duke, Don Black, & Steve Sailer might instruct on their websites)

Let me repeat. Impugning the character or reliability of a source is not an ad hominem fallacy unless the entire argument against a point hinges on this character attack.

While I am happy that many small-minded individuals have recently upgraded their vocabularies to include "straw man," "ad hominem," and "poisoning the well," they could at least study the concepts of their red herring fallacies before passing them out like free business cards. (not an insult to disprove their conjectures, thus, not ad hominem)

Interestingly enough, if one of us makes an argument that so & so is a racist, the opposition's merely calling out ad hominem is itself an ad hominem fallacy if they make no effort to disprove the allegations of racism. (which no one has even attempted BTW)

Logical fallacies are very interesting, and we see many of them from our trollish comrades. Arguments to authority from people claiming to be experts. The old argumentum ad nauseam... if you repeat it enough it must be true. The existential fallacy, appeals to probability, fallacy of neccesity, Ipsedixitism & honor by association... I could go on.

Point is. Rushton's being a rabid racist is, in fact, a valid critique of his reliability as an expert in racial differences. Couple this with frequently cited, but never directly addressed arguments like eminent biologist Joseph L. Graves' in his 2004 book The Race Myth <link> which call into question the very notion of a biologically reality to the fundamental term in Saletan's hypothesis (race), or the literally dozens of other links to mainstream geneticists, neurologists and other experts who deny everything from the notion of 'g' to the "culturally fair" nature of IQ testing... and you have the makings of a very real case. Instead of crying ad hominem, you need to be trying to prove how these scientists are wrong. Coming up with at least one actual ethical use to which this "research" could be put to would be nice as well.

Oh... and simply shouting over & over that Gould was a Marxist is ad hominem, because the Mis-measure of Man did not serve to justify any Marxist beliefs. Nor does it make any challenge to his assertions. And, perhaps, most importantly no one on those threads was even quoting him.

While studying undergrad philosophy I encountered these logical fallacies not formally but piecemeal. I have noticed in the last couple of years that discourse (ahem) on the web has been peppered with phrases like "ad hominem", "straw man" and so on. I believe that it is the open and anonymous nature of web discourse that has brought about a more general awareness regsarding the stuff of argument. My personal pet peeve is variations on "so we find out the emporer has no clothes!" It has gotten to the point that I can no longer finish reading a post if someone use that trite cliché. I can see the same happening with the bug-bears you raise. Instead of using the phrase "straw man" why doesn't the poster just say, "you argued fallaciously against Y but it is X that is under discussion". I know it's not as economical but the war against cliché is the only just war I know of... I was thinking about top posting something about all this before but now you've said it a zillion times better than I ever could so thanks! (At least people seem to be giving up on, "At the end of the day..." Aaargh!)

>The various types of argumentum ad hominem are logical fallacies used to counter an argument of an opponent solely by changing the topic to a personal attack on that opponent.

Yep. This describes precisely a signifcant fraction of posts by the gap-deniers.

>However, to introduce bias, untrustworthiness, or motive for disingenuous behavior into an argument that also directly challenges the factual assertions of say Saletan or Rushton, is not only not ad hominem, but is standard practice in logic, debate, and legal proceedings worldwide.

We can judge Rushton et al's logic and interpretation for ourselves. I've not seen anyone claim that his research results are actually lies, which would be relevant. It would also implicate his co-authors and perhaps even reviewers. Are you suggesting such a scientific conspiracy? I hope you have evidence (the factual kind).

>Arguments to authority from people claiming to be experts.

Sure have seen that one from the denialists too.

qaz on Rushton:

I've not seen anyone claim that his research results are actually lies, which would be relevant.

Not trying to be side, but perhaps you haven't been paying attention? Here is a multiple co-authored direct challenge of Rushton's assertions and methodology...

Although Rushton (1988, 1990a, 1991) implied that Blacks are consistently found to have smaller brains than Whites, some of the studies listed in his reviews actually show opposite trends: North American Blacks were superior to American Whites in brain weight (see Tobias, 1970, p. 6:1355 g vs. 1301 g) or were found to have cranial capacities favorably comparable to the average for various samples of Caucasians (see Herskovits, 1930) and number of excess neurons larger than many groups of Caucasoids, for example, the English and the French (see Tobias, 1970, p. 9). In general, skulls from people in countries with poverty and infant malnutrition are smaller regardless of race.

There are literally dozens of cases like this. This article is not even completely comprehensive, but it lays a solid case against much of what Rushton asserts: <link>

You can comb through the hundreds of threads and find dozens upon dozens of peer-reviewed challenges to what Rushton claims Ipse Dixit.

Qaz... I'm curious. Not trying to offend... If you believe Rushton (which you appear to)... How do the white racialists in your realist movement feel about the relative 'g' superiority of Jews and Asians? Seriously, I'd really like to hear.

What you've just cited is not an accusation that his research is lies, but rather that, in a review article, he has been selective in his interpretation of the existing literature. Whether this holds water or not, I'm sure you could find comparable stuff on the other side, and likely in many debates in science (not that I'm excusing that). I'm all for reading the primary literature and eyeing carefully other people's interpretations (both in research and review articles)- by which I mean the premises and logic of their intpretation, not their motives.

>If you believe Rushton (which you appear to)...

I'll believe Rushton's empirical results until I have reason to believe they are fraudulent. He is but one of numerous reviewers whose interpretations of the literature converge on the idea that IQ is real, isn't culturally biased, does differ by race, and is partially genetic (by individual and group), arguments I find persuasive to varying degrees, but all more so than not.

>How do the white racialists in your realist movement

Movement? I'm not in any movement. I'm not a "white racialist" (if that means "supremecist"). I don't know where you get your ideas. I don't care whether Jews or Asians or Blacks or Whites have the highest average IQ: it won't affect my IQ one bit, and I couldn't do anything about what the reality is even if I did care.

Qaz

You used the term "the gap-deniers" and later said "denialists." Both terms are in regular usage on the"race realist" and "white racialist" websites like American Renaissance, Gene Expression, Steve Sailer's blog etc. If you are not a member of that movement coached by David Duke, Jared Taylor and their cohorts, I am sorry for suggesting that you might be.

I recognize that there are people who hold your opinions that are not part of that growing militant movement. Just as the vast majority of us skeptics of Jensen, Rushton, Lynn, and Gottfredson are not members of any group, but rather individuals who have found this research to be poorly done, misred, and purposefully abused for racists ends. I don't even know of any "gap-denier" groups or blogs, actually.

You must realize that the organized racialists (loosely defined as one who promotes their race... as opposed to a racist who is prejudiced against others), white separatists, all the way up to the hard-core stormfront.org type neo-nazis and klansmen are, in fact, schooled to evangelize on this topic. They are given instruction in how to properly debate the issue, and they use phraseology and talking points similar to the one's you have used.

As for Rushton's studies, the burden of proof is his. He is the one making claims that science has not found valid as of yet. Besides, to counter his claims, we do not need to prove that he intentionally lied or misled the public... only that the assertions he makes are either provably false, not supported by the data he cites, or are rendered inconclusive due to conflicting results of other researchers.

Furthermore, for those of us who find the fundamental assumptions to be false, haphazard, or unsubstantiated scientifically, a logical argument can be made without even assessing his research at all. If one can prove that:

a> race is not a biological fact (as many biologists and geneticists have done)

b> 'g' is not a measurement of intelligence, but a statistical artifact of standardized testing, curve-fitted to the data... and that we have no definition of intelligence, let alone any true barometer by which to measure it.

c> the IQ tests being cited were not "culturally fair," or even administered to people in their native language. (Even Jensen & Rushton acknowledge that there is a large bias if the test is given to people in a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th language... as happens to be the case with much of the African research)

d> correlations, which might appear genetic and hereditary, can be also explained by combinations of environmental factors, RNA interactions, alleles being turned off due to nutritional deficiencies, and a host of other complex and cumulative contributors we have yet to even quantify. (see Biologista's posts)

Then, no assertion based on these pillars can be considered as authoritative or the state of our scientific knowledge on the matter at all. When science debunked the idea of the element of ether, all hypotheses and theories utilizing the concept of ether became moot points regardless of their elegance or ability to describe and predict observations.

My main point continues to be that by purporting to answer a biological question via the statistical analysis of data collected by differential psychologists (many with well established pro-eugenics stances), we are not practicing "hard-science" at all. If the question is whether there is a genetic basis to human cognitive ability, then it seems patently obvious that the only way to answer this question is to study the genomes of people at the extreme levels of intelligence (however judged), and compare them... looking for alleles that are causative in this regard. "Race" has nothing to do with this question, and only gets in the way of the actual data... which would obviously be trans-racial.

If race-realists want to confine this to a narrow, statistical pissing contest by their definitions and standards, I suppose they are entitled to do so. Saletan's passing this nonsense off as the "state of our knowledge," however, is not only reckless & pre-mature... but mean-spirited and wrong-headed.

There you go.

I don't follow AmRen, but I do read GNXP and Sailor. Where are you getting your information about them? I know none of them personally but would be shocked if they were "coached" by Duke (in GNXP's case, I'd be shocked if Duke even understood half of what they write.) Show me the evidence if you've got it, otherwise stop making incendiary charges.

I've used the term "race realist" because I've seen it being used on those websites to indicate someone who believes that races have some biological basis and that the obvious surface racial differences we see need not by the sum total of such differences. Neither of those beliefs (the first well-supported by fact, the second unimpeachable theory) implies anything about hate, supremacy, or separatism.

Reading further: Points a-c are standard objections, largely without merit in my opinion (although I'll leave the book slightly open on c). They've been addressed here and elsewhere. Suffice it to say that 1) these are areas of active research, 2) belief in any of the arguments they claim to contradict is not inherently immoral, and 3) if you're going to argue that we can't predict some sort of general, transferable intelligence with psychometric tests, you're going to be arguing with a ton of schools and companies with money on the line who believe otherwise. Point d is largely irrelevant, although it does sound like there's something Lamarkian going on that should be investigated by the psychology community. See my responses to Biologista's posts.

>My main point continues to be that by purporting to answer a biological question via the statistical analysis of data collected by differential psychologists

Again, as I've said to Biologista, the heritability of IQ is not a biological question, at least in the terms she's using.

>"Race" has nothing to do with this question, and only gets in the way of the actual data... which would obviously be trans-racial.

Race isn't the only interesting thing, or even the most interesting thing, about IQ research. Racial differences in IQ are mostly worth studying because present public polict assumes they don't exist, a point I've made in several previous posts. Secondarily, I might imagine that knowing about racial differences in IQ might help the search for candidate IQ genes, for instance if some brain-linked alleles were more prevalent in populations at the IQ extremes, but I'm not a geneticist so I won't push this point. Finally, as a matter of principle I'm not willing to accept the premise that unless knowledge has immediate practical applications it shouldn't be pursued.

>not only reckless & pre-mature... but mean-spirited and wrong-headed.

This work has been going on for decades, and like I say, our public policy assumes even more premature assertions. And Saletan's article wasn't mean-spirited, and I'm not mean-spirited, but I've heard more abuse from the [whatever term will make not make you think I heard it from David Duke] side directed at me than I've heard directed at anyone on any other website I visit. Moreover, they are worse than mean-spirited: they are censorious.

JahSun--

Thank you for posting this nice summary. This is really interesting to me. I'm learning a lot about fields outside my own.

Qaz--

Yes, that was the reaction of the biological community: Holy &%#*! You mean Lamarck was [partly] right?

There's a LOT still to be learned. We are nowhere near proof.

>There's a LOT still to be learned. We are nowhere near proof.

Proofs exist in mathematics. Scientists build theories. You are holding out an impossible standard that neither psychology nor genetics can ever reach; worse, you are saying that anyone who doesn't adhere to that standard is irresponsible or immoral.

You need to read Stephen Jay Gould's book The Mismeasure of Man. Rushton is EASILY refuted and dead wrong.

Jah,

Nice work! I am a grad student in philosophy and have enjoyed your posts. You actually know what you are talking about, and I couldn't agree with you more. Saletan should be embarrassed by this article.

Or you could read about it

<link>

<link>

<link>

qaz:

"Well supported by fact" you say; also "unimpeachable logic."

And this is in reply to a long, carefully reasoned argument which you attempt to refute by making unsupported claims. You say your racial notions are supported by facts. What facts? What evidence can you present? How good is your science? And how good is that supposedly unimpeachable logic?

You've been operating in a closed environment within which shared beliefs about these matters is axiomatic.

Your denial that heritability of IQ is a biological subject (specifically, within evolutionary biology) is a simple denial of the facts. You claim to be a supporter of science, but when science disagrees with you, you run from it and deny it. Who's the Denier now? It's you.

Public policy does not make premature assumptions about race and racism: it has recently become somewhat agnostic about race, and this seems to bother the professional racists like Jared Taylor. Tough shit. Racist speech is hate speech. It is damaging to people who have already suffered enough from racism, and don't need more. In the end, like the nazis, you wrap yourself in the flag of the first amendment. Nobody has said that you can't say what you want about this, or about anything. All they've said is that "race realism" is no more factually scientific than "creation science" is. Both are sops to discredited ideologies.

You demand sources but you provide no sources. You demand evidence but you supply none yourself. You say you've already dealt with these arguments, but when previously presented with them you were just willfully obtuse, and didn't present actual evidence or argument any more than you do now. The technical term for this approach to argument is "bullshit." You can look it up.

>And this is in reply to a long, carefully reasoned argument which you attempt to refute by making unsupported claims. You say your racial notions are supported by facts. What facts? What evidence can you present?

I've been fighting this lonely battle for going on a week; I don't have time to write lengthy responses to everyone. As far as factual support, I've already linked in a previous post to recent genetic cluster analyses grouping people into the usual races. Or you could believe your own two eyes.

>Public policy does not make premature assumptions about race and racism: it has recently become somewhat agnostic about race

As someone who is quite familiar with academic and fellowship applications, I can tell you that public policy has not become agnostic about race.

Let me make this clear. I do not spend my time researching this issue. I am not an expert on any facet of this particular debate. Nor, for that matter, does any portion of this argument fall in the top 50 of my personal interests or areas of expertise. That said,

Quoting Qaz:

...I do read GNXP and Sailor. Where are you getting your information about them? I know none of them personally but would be shocked if they were "coached" by Duke (in GNXP's case, I'd be shocked if Duke even understood half of what they write.

Be shocked then. David Duke is no idiot. Go to Stormfront.org, or Davidduke.com, and meet the ringleaders behind your entry-level webzines and blogs. Be aware that the people who run the sites that you like, are, in fact, friendly with, and in communication with the more hard-core elements of what they perceive as a broad movement. This is not to say that there are not divisions and fractures in this unstable mix of "genteel" racists and raving supremacists. Case in point being the well-documented walk out of some Jewish AmRen members when David Duke co-opted the 2006 convention and said that the Jewish problem is worse than the Islamic one. (just google the convention)

I will not post links or reprint the crap he and Don Black post. Suffice it to say, they have forums for e-Activism, guidelines for blog posting, and are working on a manual for their soldiers of evangelism.

All of this disturbs me greatly. The ruthless, and callous heartlessness displayed be these people, who, in my belief system are my brothers and sisters, chills me. It seems fairly clear to me, that the human race needs all of its members to work together. On every level, our global problems can only be resolved by greater unity, empathy, and cohesiveness. If we have any chance to preserve the delicate bio-sphere, end needless human suffering, and elevate our species to the point where we can one day spread out into space and thus possibly even survive the Earth and our solar system... hate such as demonstrated by these people must be defused.

The scariest part for me is that, on some issues, I actually agree with these "monsters." Even amid hate-filled rants, I can often pick out a point or two that I agree with in principle. One example is that I have always felt that "Race" should be completely removed from all government, scholastic, or work-related forms. It seems irrelevant to me. I feel that people should be treated as individuals. Frighteningly enough, I noticed this exact sentiment being voiced by people whose other comments were abhorrent to me... even one of our more vociferous trolls.

For them, it is simply a means to dismantle Affirmative Action. My belief is that, in an egalitarian world, all individuals would have easy access^ to whatever economic, educational, or social assistance they might need. (^ I don't believe aid should be forced on those who don't want it, or who'd rather opt out of a bureaucratic system for whatever reason... you should be allowed to be homeless if that is what you want.) The point is that we came to the same position from diametrically opposite rationales, and with very different intents.

I noticed the same thing in regards to politics. I consider myself to be neither liberal nor conservative as those terms are not even opposites. Liberal is the opposite of closed-minded. Conservative is the opposite of progressive. Most people have positions that fall into all four categories. This year, I have found the honesty and constitutionalist positions espoused by congressman Dr. Ron Paul to be a breath of fresh air on many issues where Democrats and Republicans both seem beholden to the status quo. I've known for decades that libertarians often attract über right-wing nationalists to their cause, but I was still shocked to find that the neo-nazis almost universally support Dr. Paul. He is no racist, obviously. And while I still may lend him my support, the thought that I may vote Republican and for the same candidate as David Duke is mind-boggling to me.

In sum, I will say that I empathize with those who look around and see that their way of life is in danger of disappearing. No amount of racism will stop Wall-Mart from destroying your quaint town center or shipping your jobs off to Bangalore or Beijing. There is really no going back to Leave It To Beaver. We must be able to envision a future that is better than our past, or what is the point in all of our "progress?" Whatever reasons white racialists have for championing the obtuse conjectures of some of their differential psychologist brethren who would rank us all according to linear tests that they themselves have developed (and yet still come out 3rd on), it doesn't really address the root issues. How can we make the world a better place? What can we do to make everyone feel safer and more welcome in the global society? How can civilization 3.0 be more humane than its predecessors? How can we individuals achieve greater personal happiness?

That is the real million dollar question, right? The one that all geniuses should have figured out before going on to string theory or differential equations in imaginary numbers... right? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Never trust a genius who isn't extremely happy with his own life... how smart is someone who hasn't figured that obvious bit of wisdom out?