Something which seems to rapidly
becoming lost in the recurring arguments for and against Dawkins and
rational/scientific rationalism is that this is probably an
evolutionary adaptation of what has come before (indeed check our
William Shockley, who went from crucial scientific innovation, to
popular speaking, to racism: some fairly strong parallels there). The
living legacy of scientific racism has never truly been discarded or
buried, either in practice
or in thinking:
Here Charles
Murray, one of the most influential standard-bearers of the Right's
campaigns against the post-1960s developments in regards to race and
the family, echoes more or less everything the Left has said about
'The White Working Class Community.' Our current elites are too
distant and too disconnected to understand 'our decline', and the
rest of the populace is too lost without guidance, solved in Murray's
view by having the wealthy elite re-instruct us in the grand old ways
of the pre-60s. What Murray and the left believe in unison is that
the decline of the white working class is a problem of genetics and
the passage of time. In 1984 Murray's Losing Ground would advocate
reconstruction of welfare in the US; in 1996 the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act
attacked those groups Murray and his
ilk felt were the cause of the country's decline: mothers and African
Americans. Murray has experience in managing what he might call
unruly populations: for a time Murray worked in Thailand on behalf of
the US government carrying out counterinsurgency studies.
One of
Murray's coups and a once ubiquitous for a time in US discussions was
the publishing with Richard Herrnstein of The Bell Curve in 1994.
Bravely the authors declared they could not ignore the wealth of IQ
data which they had accumulated suggesting that America must face the
facts: compared to whites, black people were possibly genetically
less intelligent. Never-mind the distorted route by which
intelligence testing came to find itself perfectly situated at he
heart of American scientific racism, how it at the very best should
be considered pseudo-scientific, or how it has been one of the most
valuable footsoldiers in maintaining hierarchies. The genetic
inheritance of intelligence is an area well-worth sniffing around
because you never know who'll turn up. Putting their names to 1994's
Wall Street Journal article “Mainstream Science on
Intelligence” endorsing the views of the Bell Curve were respected
intelligence researchers such as Raymond B. Cattell, Thomas J.
Bouchard, Hans B. Eysenck, and Robert Plomin: these are not obscure
backroom people but (Cattell and Eysenck especially) you will have
encountered their ideas in some works training or seminar. Steven
Pinker, to whom the world has already been pacified by liberal
capitalism with the exception of some unruly outposts, approved this missive.
A figure who hasn't
enjoyed a resurgence in popularity along with science pron nerd
favourite Carl Sagan but is from the same era is the evolutionary
biologist Stephen Jay Gould. Gould wasn't a
prolific skeptic-buster, eager to throw himself into the industry
that developed in the wake of Sagan and now has its avatars in
Dawkins and co. In some of his last work Gould seemed to find a much better course in the friction between science and religion than his contemporaries preach. What Gould did in books such as The Mismeasure of Man
was apply skepticism to ruling doctrines within science and
psychology, and came away with what added up to the collusion and
deception on a mass scale by eugenicists to forge the data to support
their theories. Gould faced criticism for being ideologically driven
in the face of the blistering destruction he delivered to the
academic racists; usually, when the ideological biases of something
are brought up (as Gould himself honestly does in the work) it is to
distract from the fact that the entire body surrounding it is being driven
by an opposing ideology.