Thread by @Katja_Thieme

#NathanCofnas has written a response to recent journalistic articles critical of his appointment as Leverhulme fellow in philosophy at Cambridge. I was tempted to line up the terms he is using to give the impression that his work can't have been debunked.
So, let's do that. 1/

A: terms he uses to describe his own work
B: terms for the work of his critics

A: He works in "philosophy of biology and ethics" and his paper in a "highly respected philosophy and psychology journal" calls for "free inquiry into all possible causes of race difference" in IQ.

B: In response to that story, a "small group of philosophers" had "a meltdown" which is "its own funny story."

I'll leave out the description of his encounters with the journalists at the two news outlets; it's not as relevant to the characterization of his & others' research.

A: That IQ "gaps exist is the starting point for the debate" in which his research is engaged; "a demonstrable fact not denied by any informed commentator." [I have a response here, but this thread is not about that.]

B: He says that "some unnamed 'various scientists' criticised" his work for "saying something politically unpopular" is the start of "a campaign to threaten my employment."

B: Some "debunkers appeal to morality" in their rejection of hereditarianism. Others says it's not a good scientific starting point and they, too, are "politically motivated." In other words, "scientists sometimes obfuscate for moral/political reasons."

But not hereditarians. :)

A: He does not take the easy route, he does not pretend “to believe the politically correct view.”

B, about others' work: "Have you heard of the 'replication crisis' in psychology?" Several discoveries "widely touted by liberal social scientists" have turned out "to be fake."

B, again about others' work: The explanations for the "race differences in intelligence" that allegedly no-one denies "have all been tested and shown to be inadequate." Racism "doesn’t explain why the same patterns of differences appear again & again across time & place."

A: He suffers from the "pain of (at least attempted) cancellation." But he is on the side of the truth that "cannot be cancelled" despite not being able to have "frank discussions" about the hereditarian hypothesis, which "hasn't been debunked."

B: Others, however, are "invested in the reigning political orthodoxy" and are fearful about "what might be discovered if we were to critically examine the issue."

A: #NathanCofnas, on the other hand, is ready to "confront some very awkward facts." He is a "philosopher of biology and ethicist" who takes his job seriously: "to help prepare us for that day, regardless of what uninformed journalists or protesters think."

Just noticed that I started numbering at the first tweet and then immediately abandoned that. Sorry!

What we can see in my analysis is the narrative that's woven by choice of words that characterize his own and others' work. It's a narrative about fearful, political, cancellation-happy sheep for researchers who get in the way of the relentless pursuit of truth on racial IQ.

It goes without saying, hereditarians like #NathanCofnas are committed to said pursuit of the truth which when it arrives he will have seen clearly (even without evidence of his own) because no political, moral, personal, or professional reasons are obfuscating his view. :)

Here's the response piece I'm analyzing in this thread.

thecritic.co.uk/my-debunked-vi…

For a counter to his kind of view, see here.

vox.com/the-big-idea/2…