From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Burt and _Mismeasure of Man_
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:18:54 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system


        Since both of these topics arose at roughly the same time, and since 
they're so related, I might as well post under both of them.

        First of all, I'm hoping that the Philly Free Public Library bought 
those two books defending Burt, so I can see for myself. Although I'm 
inclined to think Burt faked his data, I'd be willing to be convinced 
otherwise. (Problem is, the local library ain't that great about stocking 
books, so...)

        Second, in the original citation of the reviews of these books, the 
accusation against Burt's critics-- that they were politically motivated, 
that they wanted to suppress Burt's 'heresy,' that they're all a bunch of 
iniquitous Lefties-- is specifically stated. That's funny, because I rarely 
hear accusations in the other direction; that promoters of hereditarian 
claims have analogous biases and agendas.

        A bit of perspective on tbe Burt affair is needed. Stephen Jay Gould 
outlined in _The Mismeasure of Man_ how much I.Q. theory was, for many years, 
based on a product of Charles Spearman's factor analysis called _g_, which 
Spearman felt was a definable measure of intelligence. As Gould outlines, 
this _g_ was closer to a statistical artifact than any measurable thing in 
the real world. Gould further argues that Burt's real error was in accepting, 
with many of his time, the empirical reality of _g_.

        (Note: Gould does present a good summary of Hearnshaw's charges 
against Burt as well, but he focuses more on the influence of Spearman on 
I.Q. testing.)

        So, regardless of whether Burt faked his data or not-- and, since I 
haven't read the pro-Burt material previously cited, I won't address it 
here-- it seems that an analysis of I.Q. that still incorporates Spearman's 
_g_ should be examined critically.


        As for twins studies, I've got a somewhat amusing source on that. The 
current twin studies were being conducted by Thomas Bouchard at the 
University of Minnesota-- thus, the 'Minnesota Twin' studies. I
've got an ASCII file somewhere that was written before Bouchard actually 
published his data, but it details how Bouchard would make sweeping 
hereditarian claims to the media for _years_ before publishing-- a sin that 
Pons and Fleischmann got rightly trounced for, BTW. I'll see if I can dig it 
up and repost it, but when I do, I'll have to remind y'all that it was 
written before Bouchard published, and addresses the claims he'd released to 
the media.


Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
Warning! Beware of weird, horrible cult which: Uses promises of money, a job,
and other favors to recruit people; indoctrinates beginners in an armed
camp until they're thoroughly brainwashed; employs terror,
assassination, murder, and threats thereof; is particularly interested
in the young, and those who follow orders without question; holds
against their will members who wish to leave; and goes by many names,
e.g., The Service, military, Armed Forces, ROTC, JROTC, recruiters,
Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard, Green Berets.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:8106 rec.music.classical:5871