Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Harris says Murray's work should be considered. Klein argues we must consider the science within the social context before just throwing it out there. It's an artful dodge, but amounts to, "Murray says terribly uncomfortable things. We should weight their impact before debating them on purely scientific bases."

Klein has a point. (I also think Murray's work is scientifically lacking because he's a gross generalist who loves dividing complex groups into black and white.) Murray's stuff is incendiary and we should be careful about those discussions. Where Klein goes too far is suggesting the potential social damage from debating Murray augurs in favor of pre-emptively marginalizing Murray, effectively censoring him. Harris's point - let the science do the talking and debunk Murray as it may - is far more compelling and intellectually honest.

That bears only the faintest resemblance to what Klein said. Actually, that's too kind. Among other things, Klein repeatedly points out to Harris that academics say that Murray's work is shite, and that Harris is bending over backwards to avoiding acknowledging that. For example:

Ezra Klein
The scientists, Nisbett and Paige Harden and Turkheimer, said that they believe Murray’s interpretation of this, ultimately, is pseudoscience and is way, way, way out in front of the data. I

Sam Harris
But you know Turkheimer has apologized for that. What do you with the fact that he’s apologized for that?

Ezra Klein
I spoke with him yesterday. He holds all the same views on this, but that he feels that that wasn’t helpful to the debate, which is nice of him. He may be, you know, it’s good to keep the debate’s temperature down, but that doesn’t change his view.

Sam Harris
Okay, but if it’s junk science, then it’s disagreement about the actual science.

Ezra Klein
I think you’re going to have to ask Turkheimer what he thinks on this. I think you’re misreading him. At any rate, I think it would be not useful for us to spend our time on that.

David Reich, in the very article that you sent to me, his view on this is that whatever we think now is going to be proven wrong, that whatever confidence we have now, is going to be shown to be incorrect. The ideas and the information coming down the pike are going to surprise us. So, the argument of Turkheimer, Paige Harden, Nisbett, in the piece that, again, people should go to the show notes and read these pieces, is that, who knows? Maybe some time in the future we’ll find this, but right now there’s no reason to believe it.

The question you have to ask yourself is, why is Harris working so hard to rehabilitate Murray's work? Why all the preening about his courage in being able to consider the science, and the courage only to consider pro-Murray science? Why is that so compelling to Harris, and why is it so compelling to you?

Murray is a political hack. He has been a political hack for ever. He clearly has an agenda. Why does Harris so easily impute bad motives to people on one side of the spectrum, like Klein, but simply ignore that Murray's work is in the name of trying to get the government to do less for people who are less well off? Doesn't that seem relevant to you?