Why go to all the work of writing an essay with all the standard ad homenim attacks, apologetics, and obfuscation, only to give the game away in the last sentence? Crappy research indeed. So it's really not about the science.

Reading comprehension got you down?

He was explaining how being angry at Saletan et al doesn't make you irrational or incorrect when challenging his study sources or his conclusion(s).

Can you define ad hominem and find two or more examples of it in Metcalf's piece? Doubt it.

He was explaining how being angry at Saletan et al doesn't make you irrational or incorrect when challenging his study sources or his conclusion(s).

You are correct. I did misread that passage.

Can you define ad hominem and find two or more examples of it in Metcalf's piece? Doubt it.

Ad hominem: argument against the man.

"Who are these two men? J. Philippe Rushton is the head of America's most dedicated subsidizer and promoter of eugenic research, the Pioneer Fund, which I have written about here. Arthur Jensen has spent the last 40 years arguing against "compensatory education," or the idea that programs like Head Start have any efficacy in alleviating black underachievement."

And more:

"Saletan casually countenances the assertion that the mean IQ of sub-Saharan Africa is 70. The number arrives to us via a man named Richard Lynn. Lynn is the author of the 1996 volume "Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations." In "historical societies," Lynn wrote, "illegitimate children, born predominantly to parents with low intelligence and weak character, suffered high mortality." "

It isn't an ad hominem attack to say that Rushton is a notorious racist: the evidence for that is all over the web, and it speaks directly to the question of his impartiality as a scientist. There are a lot of other things one could say about Rushton that would lend depth and texture to a portrait of him as an academic scam artist, self-dealer and bigot, but that would exceed the terms of the question at hand.

Always amusing how you wingnuts are so touchy when your own are exposed.

The research that Lynn used in his book is often shockingly shoddy and clearly assembled for ideological purposes: it's racist propaganda, not science. But my saying so is "ad hominem." Oh dear.

In research that makes claims that are racial by nature how is it an ad hominem attack on that researcher to indicate that the researcher may not be impartial in regards to the subject being studied.

Do you contend that it is illogical to find racial research dubious when it is presented by a racist? Is it an ad hominem attack to call a racist a racist?

Well, of course it isn't an ad hominem attack. It is possible after all, that a convinced racist could do clean and convincing research, even on matters of presumed racial difference, though that is stretching the point.

The reason to mention Rushton's racism -- and Metcalf was completely appropriate in the way he did this -- is that his work is sloppy and leaps to unfounded conclusions, which he bases on completely ambiguous evidence. The original authors of the Minnesota Twin Study surrounded their results with caveats about how no conclusions could be drawn one way or another because of precisely the issues Metcalf identifies: the multiple and incompatible tests used, and the many differences between the cohorts tested -- differences that Rushton and other diff psych "scientists" gloss over with blather about "SES equivalency."

These people are not scientists. They are apologists for an ideology, and the ideology is racism. Every one of their supporters on this board, once you scratch them a little, turns out to be obsessed with affirmative action and "special rights." If the differences revealed in testing are not due to the heritage of Jim Crow in America and Boer racism in Africa, then compensation for those social injuries is not needed. That's what this is all about.

Yo Homey

While it warms my heart to see you embracing logic & logical fallacies... you seem to misunderstand how they work and what they are for.

It is one thing to simply define the words argumentum ad hominem. It is quite another thing to understand the implementation of a logical fallacy in an argument.

You may want to read this thread, as we discussed this in some detail over there recently. For the short-attention span peanut gallery... in short:

An argument or rebuttal can only be dismissed as ad hominem, if, and only if, said argument relies only and solely, on a personal attack. Metcalf, myself, and other posters do not simply say that someone is a racist, and thus dodge countering their argument. On the contrary, we show the misrepresentations, impugn the data, counter the conclusions, and then point out that the scientists conducting this research are associated with a racist organization, have made racist comments, and are widely considered to be nutjobs....

This, as part of a larger argument, is in no way an ad hominem logical fallacy. Our case does not rest solely on attacking the people involved (or their funding for that matter), and, more importantly, we are calling into question the reliability and impartiality of an "expert witness" and the quality of their evidence. This is part and parcel of examining any argument. And let me be clear. It is the "race-realist" researchers (and their fanclub) that are making an argument and putting forth their case. The rest of us are simply saying that this case is a) full of holes, b) based on false assumptions, c) utilizes scandalously cherry picked data, and d) happens to follow exactly upon the lines of the stated goals of the foundation who funded the case. The Pioneer Fund's being established to promote white supremacy and eugenics, and being classified as a hate group by the SPLC ... is actually quite integral to this debate.

Look up the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, and then read any criticism* of the meta-analysis techniques of one professor Richard Lynn (who is listed 12 times in the references of Rushton & Jensen's book)... and try to make a case that his entire tome is not a perfect example of this.

(* this one, by famous intelligence researcher Ken Richardson, is quite good)