Encyclopedia > Talk:The Bell Curve

  Article Content

Talk:The Bell Curve

The phrase "which profoundly influence the social structure and organization of work in modern industrial societies" is a direct quote from a book review. Should I
  1. remove the quoted text
  2. put quotation marks around it
  3. cite the quote's author
Ed Poor
Removed para:

Some people consider the book to be pseudoscience. Other researchers came to their defense, asking that attention be directed at the data, not the authors.


I have put back a mention of psudoscience - do a search on Google for 'bell curve pseudoscience' to find

  1. descriptions of the book as pseudoscience
  2. a defense of the book: "Right or wrong, The Bell Curve is hardly the compendium of neo-nazi pseudoscience some make it out to be" that confirms the fact that some people consider it to be pseudoscience


There is a link in the text, "Authors of The Bell Curve attacked," that links to a cite that does not really attack the authors of the Bell Curve. It is a cite that seems to present s a relatively neutral account of the issues, and itself provides links to a number of essays and links supportive of the Bell Curve. Far from providing balance to this article, this link only strengthens a pro-Bell Curve bias. I have no objection to a link to supporters of the book -- but such a link really should be balanced by a link to more criticisms of the book. This link does not serve that purpose. SR

Interestingly, searching for the text of the document linked as Scientists who agree with the conclusions of The Bell Curve (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main), I find that the linked document has had the words BELL CURVE capitalised throughout to reinforce the idea that the named scientists support the Bell Curve book. The same document is cited on a Neo-Nazi website, www.stormfront.com, but it is notable that even they have not bothered to capitalise the words BELL CURVE. Renamed the link as 'alleged document' until a definitive source can be found.

Anome, I just read the lengthy interview in The Skeptic. It cites the WSJ statement by date and page number: December 13, 1994. "Mainstream Science on Intelligence." P. A-17. Is this sufficient evidence for the reference's authenticity? (Note that I am not asking whether you agree with those scientists or even whether you think those scientists represents the mainstream -- only whether you think that they really put their names to the WSJ statement.) -- Ed Poor, Monday, June 10, 2002

The second linked document Authors of The Bell Cruve attacked (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/hum_diff) links to a page on the same website, which, as SR states, does not match its description, but is instead the author's page on 'Human differences'. I am therfore deleting it. Reason for deletion: false pretences.

-- The Anome


However, a public statement circulated by 52 internationally known scholars was published in The Wall Street Journal, 12/3/94, in support of some of the conclusions in "The Bell Curve".

I'm guessing this is in US date format, making it December 3? At a glance, it says March 12 to me, being British... -- Sam



All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

 
  Search Encyclopedia

Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!
 
 
  
  Featured Article
List of rare diseases starting with A

... Ausems Wittebol Post Hennekam syndrome[?] Autism Autoimmune hemolytic anemia[?] Autoimmune hepatitis[?] Autoimmune peripheral neuropathy[?] Autoimmune ...

 
 
 
This page was created in 41.6 ms