I said something stupid on the @bbcbigquestions this morning. When I mentioned that Mary’s virginity was a medieval invention, I was actually thinking of the Immaculate Conception. Mary’s perpetual virginity was much earlier, 3rdC onwards (though not Biblical). @NickyAACampbell
I was trying to be clever and as a result was actually stoopid and wrong. Mary’s virginity is stated in Matthew and Luke, but it is later that the doctrine emerges that she is a virgin before during and after the birth of Christ.
The Immaculate Conception of course is a totally different idea, that Mary herself was conceived free from Original Sin. That is a medieval dogma, but totally distinct from her perpetual virginity. Thanks to @Cal_Thinks for calling me out.
I blame Satan, who made me say it. Or Black Philip, who was on my t-shirt #iWillGuideThyHand
I did btw actually write about the translation that rendered Mary a virgin in my earlier book A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived, as a metaphor for genetic translation.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is not even a contestable fact. It’s demonstrably true. Human classification sits at the roots of the emergence of science in the 18th C, and in all cases it was both hierarchical and in service of the political ideology of European expansion, colonialism and subjugation.
Science is a way of knowing, employing a set of methods that are agreed and performed by people. Science does not exist outside of this framework, even with eloquent flourish.
The idea of social constructs has for some become synonymous with postmodern, or Frankfurt School bullshittery. I am unsure if RD is doing this here, but it’s unfortunate. Time, money, race are all social constructs, which are all important *because* they are socially constructed
Science is a way of knowing, and it is not possible to have a way of knowing without a human mind. Science only exists as a social construct.
A quick note of thanks. #HowToArgueWithARacist is at number 2 in the Times paperback charts. I'm very proud to be alongside friends @CCriadoPerez@Philippa_Perry and Deborah Orr, whom we miss terribly.
[I've no idea what that book is at 1, but I do not like the title at all]
I'm proud of this book, and delighted that it has found an audience, not least with it being selected as @Waterstones book of the month. bit.ly/370vcsj
Here's a line which I think is important - though I borrowed it from Helen Lewis, who borrowed it from someone else.
I’ve been writing and teaching about eugenics for 20 years, and now it is time to get those ideas down into a book, my 3rd for @jennyjennylord, 4th for @wnbooks#FasterSmarterStronger on the dark history and science of eugenics, and it’s troubling comeback in the 21st century.
Its very hard to reconcile this tweet with the history of intelligence testing. The first attempt to standardise preIQ cognitive ability tests were by the British eugenicist Francis Galton.
The Binet-Simon test in 1905 was intended to identify mental retardation in school children, and they were indeed French. This was standardised in 1916 by American eugenicist Lewis Tiernan into the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale.
G was introduced by the British eugenicist Charles Spearman in 1904.
The Binet and Simon Test of Intellectual Capacity was published in 1908 by the American eugenicist Henry Goddard.
The term IQ was coined by the German psychologist William Stern.