My original post was (a) a review of a new book which is certainly in the
area of interest of many Statisticians - as evidenced by previous long and
scholarly discussions right in RADstats, which I found very useful - and,
(b) short comments about two UK faculty who have been penalized for
substantial published research in this area (Brand), or quoting (Ellis)
these scientific facts.
Gareth Nichols' response denigrated Ellis (accused him of statements that
would get any Faculty in the Western world fired immediately).
My reply, I believe, was the minimum necessary to establish that Ellis
most certainly does not hold this alleged position. In fact "[Ellis] has
previously maintained he has never treated a black student differently to a
white student"
http://82.69.12.18/lancasteruafblog/index.php?itemid=134
Regarding Alison MacFarlane's statement - (a) RADstats has in fact
discussed at great length many issues relating to the status, public
Recognition and Treatment, and Employment of (UK) Statisticians. This is
'discuss and challenge statistics and the way statistics are used and
interpreted'? I leave it to RADstats' members to decide.
[The two UK faculty who have - so far - been victimized by 'the
Establishment' are not Statisticans, but are certainly qualified and
knowledgeable to discuss these areas. As we all know, Statistics forms an
essential part of many Scholarly disciplines, including Psychology (Brand)
and Public Policy (discussable by any educated person). Any researcher in
these adjoint areas can be presumed to have the necessary elementary
Statistical background and in many cases to have a very advanced knowledge
of certain branches. Lynn himself, Rushton, Eysenck, Jensen, Plotkin and
other Genomic researchers, Shockley, and so forth come to mind]
(b) The RADstats 'policy' which you cite, is therefore ignored in practice.
I don't see any complaint about the voluminous discussions mentioned above,
which by your standard are 'off-topic'.
To RADstats credit, I note that all the messages in this thread - stemming,
I repeat, solely from Gareth Nichol's response - have so far been published
in RADstats. This in my opinion shows commendable professional
responsibility. which I would expect of a respected List run by my
Statistical colleagues. I am quite satisfied, so perhaps we can leave it
at that.
(c) Not leaving well enough alone, I am however disturbed by the implication
that some peer-reviewed, Internationally accepted, Scientific or Public
Policy topics( which are intimately associated with, or rely upon,
Statistics) - are somehow- not discussable. Even in a Professional List like
this. If I have misunderstood, I apologize in advance. Since there has
been no demurral from anyone else, I assume this represents the stance of
the entire RADstats.
Briefly, however, Leeds University has adopted the same position- it
dictates precisely what Scientific Results may be discussed by its Faculty
Members (if they can be identified as associated with Leeds U.). "..make no
further public comments suggesting one racial group is inherently inferior
(or superior) to another". (ibid).
Do RADstats members agree with this?
I will take discussion of both the above positions elsewhere.
(d) Regarding my previous post re Chris Brand's review of the Univ of
Chicago study on Brain size and alleles -- (i) I call Chris Brand
'distinguished' because he has a long list of peer-reviewed publications,
International honours and so forth. (ii) The U. Chi. study relies heavily on
advanced Statistical methods. This is acknowledged as the first major
genomic result in the Human Psychological area (I believe there was 1
earlier result -Plotkin -regarding alleles associated with IQ) and not
surprisingly has attracted considerable public attention. This is not a fit
subject for RADstats?
Best wishes, Alan J Truelove, PhD(Statistics, Calif), MA(Cantab)
3444 Surrey Lane, Falls Church Va 22042 and Ashford, Kent
571 242 0153 (US) [log in to unmask]
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
