" Shouldn’t we follow the data wherever it leads? " This is not a helpful framing. Data do not "lead," they follow. Try writing a grant application with "just following the data" as the sole justification for the award and you will never get a dime. Some questions aren't worth asking. Science has never been about a some kind of "search for truth" because truth is infinite and thus the "search for truth" never can provide a rationale for pursuing THIS truth rather than THAT truth. Why are the questions posed by Rindermann and the rest of racial hereditarians worth asking? They believe it is because they think the world is heading for a racial/eugenic nightmare. Rindermann is quite explicit about this. Only extreme naivete can think this research is an apolitical "following the data wherever" they lead.
Maybe I'm misreading you, and, if so, I apologize. But, in the post you write. "Again, I don’t think the point is so much that these ideas are abhorrent. The point is that eventually the scientific community decides that an issue is closed." The whole point of the hereditarian research program is that the issue should not have been closed since "we have data" that proves it is a live question. This means that every time they publish their dreck, they demand that their "abhorrent" politics be kept out of it. You seem to be agree with them: "It isn't the politics, it is the science!" As if the politics are irrelevant to the science.
I should note that it seems only psychology takes this "follow the data, ignore the politics" position. Human geneticists are not plagued with these people. Nor are anthropologists, sociologists, etc. Only psychology thinks that the question of racial inferiority should be evaluated on "the data." Put it another way: an engineer could spend a lot of time designing a better thumbscrew. There are probably fascinating design questions involved and one could probably learn good engineering principles in the process. But they don't because it is politically and socially irresponsible. Psychologists need to take their political and social responsibilities more seriously. The questions you ask are value-laden and it seems pointless to me to pretend they are not.
I'm sorry, but with respect I think you are forcing a disagreement where there isn't one. My whole post was about taking our political and social responsibilities seriously. Did you read my comment on the Rindermann article? Anyway, although I'm sure we can find fine points we disagree about, I think it best to count ourselves on the same side and leave it at that.
I understand your point about being on the same side. And, I actually deleted a sentence about psychologists and torture. I remained puzzled about why psychology, seemingly alone among the human sciences, seems to condone such atrocious behavior in its nooks and crannies.
" Shouldn’t we follow the data wherever it leads? " This is not a helpful framing. Data do not "lead," they follow. Try writing a grant application with "just following the data" as the sole justification for the award and you will never get a dime. Some questions aren't worth asking. Science has never been about a some kind of "search for truth" because truth is infinite and thus the "search for truth" never can provide a rationale for pursuing THIS truth rather than THAT truth. Why are the questions posed by Rindermann and the rest of racial hereditarians worth asking? They believe it is because they think the world is heading for a racial/eugenic nightmare. Rindermann is quite explicit about this. Only extreme naivete can think this research is an apolitical "following the data wherever" they lead.
I think if you reread the post you will see I was locating that idea in an opposing argument, specifically so I could disagree with it.
Maybe I'm misreading you, and, if so, I apologize. But, in the post you write. "Again, I don’t think the point is so much that these ideas are abhorrent. The point is that eventually the scientific community decides that an issue is closed." The whole point of the hereditarian research program is that the issue should not have been closed since "we have data" that proves it is a live question. This means that every time they publish their dreck, they demand that their "abhorrent" politics be kept out of it. You seem to be agree with them: "It isn't the politics, it is the science!" As if the politics are irrelevant to the science.
I should note that it seems only psychology takes this "follow the data, ignore the politics" position. Human geneticists are not plagued with these people. Nor are anthropologists, sociologists, etc. Only psychology thinks that the question of racial inferiority should be evaluated on "the data." Put it another way: an engineer could spend a lot of time designing a better thumbscrew. There are probably fascinating design questions involved and one could probably learn good engineering principles in the process. But they don't because it is politically and socially irresponsible. Psychologists need to take their political and social responsibilities more seriously. The questions you ask are value-laden and it seems pointless to me to pretend they are not.
I'm sorry, but with respect I think you are forcing a disagreement where there isn't one. My whole post was about taking our political and social responsibilities seriously. Did you read my comment on the Rindermann article? Anyway, although I'm sure we can find fine points we disagree about, I think it best to count ourselves on the same side and leave it at that.
Also, unfortunately psychologists did conduct thumbscrew research after 9/11. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/us/report-says-american-psychological-association-collaborated-on-torture-justification.html
I understand your point about being on the same side. And, I actually deleted a sentence about psychologists and torture. I remained puzzled about why psychology, seemingly alone among the human sciences, seems to condone such atrocious behavior in its nooks and crannies.