Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 27

message: Re:these journals don't contain any criticism of any funding agency
Journals do discuss any relevant issues. For example, the PF was discussed in Intelligence, but only in Weyher's editorial criticizing media presentation of the fund. Funding biasing researchers would certainly be relevant.--Nectar 01:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many other journals have criticized the fund. Regarding Intelligence, it has several Pioneer Fund grantees on its editorial board.Ultramarine 14:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Journals criticizing funding

message: there's no mention of PF in the best reviews:
* the APA statement
* the WSJ statement
* the 2005 PPPL articles
There's Tucker, Lombardo, and a variety of reviews of The Bell Curve which mention PF. There's the Gottfredson incident, and the SPLC classifcation as a hate group. Anything else? Which of these relate directly to this article? I'm afraid that too much is currently being made in the intro out of very little published substance. --Rikurzhen 08:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it started with just the mention that the funding from the Pioneer Fund somehow biased the field or some of the scientific results in the field. Then, a tangible quote was requested as to how and why it could bias the results, and that was added. Then,a whole lot of explanations were added saying the Fund wasn't so bad, that fundees had to defend themselves from media opinion, etc. So yes, it kind of spiraled out. I think what's impotant to mention is that the fund has been criticized for a number of reasons. The rest is only counterarguments trying to say the fund isn't that criticized (in a very restricted sample of journals), that most of those criticizing it aren't specialists in the field, etc. Do we really need all that wording to try to compensate for stating a fact (that the Fund has been criticized)?--Ramdrake 14:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: just the mention that the funding from the Pioneer Fund somehow biased the field or some of the scientific results in the field -- But the quote doesn't seem to say that at all. To cause "bias" is to cause "bias" in interpretation. To fund a line of research is not "bias". However, the main question I raised is whether the PF criticism deserves the prominent treatment it receives given that we're scarping far-flung individual sources to piece together a criticism -- we're not simply getting it from a review article. --Rikurzhen 21:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the critical side of the edit, I used a total of two citations. I wouldn't call that "scraping together far-flung individual sources". What may look more like the expression you used is the amalgamation of sources used to try demonstrate that the Pioneer Fund criticism is restricted to some circles, and/or does not exist in the journals of the field, and that overall its influence can be considered a "weak plus". And I'm using the word bias in the largest sense possible, so feel free to substitute another more appropriate word if you feel that it differs from your definition of "bias".--Ramdrake 22:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  too much space in intro is spent on PF