The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Burn the Witch
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

For some years I have been organizing the London Conference on Intelligence, which brings together about 25 invited researchers to present papers and debate issues in a critical but friendly setting. (“The London School” was the name give to those who argued that intelligence had a general component, and was heritable). Speakers are chosen for innovative work, independent thought and for being more interested in whether things are true than whether they are comfortable. We are in favour of the under-dog and the rebellious, but if there is a theme at all is that all views must have empirical support.

As you would expect from any group of academics, there were many differences of opinion, and less emphasis on organization. We made sure there was plenty of time for informal discussion, and that resulted in many of the researchers working together on scientific papers. In fact, about half of the presented papers eventually ended up as published work, slightly better than the norm for conferences. The only common project we ever agreed upon was that the Lynn database of country IQs should be thoroughly revised and every aspect documented on a public database.

By way of background, I had originally intended that these meeting would be public, with university students attending, and journalists invited. Speakers told me I was naïve to even consider that option, because many of them were already under political pressure, and feared loss of grant money, promotion, or even their academic survival. So, we moved to invitation only, and reduced publicity.

One young speaker was a bit different because he was a sociologist by background, and attended the group primarily to seek a sounding board for his work on the link between political attitudes and intelligence. He did no work on race and intelligence, though he later wrote a paper explaining why in his view such research should continue, and that suppressing it would be wrong.

Last year he won a Fellowship at the University of Cambridge, the best of over 900 candidates. This was a great achievement. Before he could take up this prestigious post, which deservedly would have launched him on a brilliant career, a political campaign was launched against him, and one of his supposed crimes was to have attended the London Conference on Intelligence. Additionally, he had written an empirical paper arguing that people’s views of immigrant groups were affected by that immigrant group’s criminality.

Short story: Cambridge threw him out. He lost his job, and effectively has lost his career. We had no way to defend him from this outrageous injustice. We wondered how he would ever find a job, in today’s very censorious climate.

It is a pleasure to report that he has launched a crowdfunded lawsuit against the Cambridge College which hounded him out. He is doing this simply to show that he was unfairly judged. Any surplus funds, should there be any will be held over for the next person to be treated in this awful way.

Could you please support him? It turns out that the investigation into his appointment process confirms he was the best person to get the job.

Even $10 from each person reading this blog would help him mount a case, and I think he will win. This could be a turning point.

• Category: Science • Tags: Academia, IQ, Political Correctness 
Hide 22 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Would like to second James’ appeal.

    Battling the politicization of academia serves almost everyone’s interests, regardless of your ideological orientation.

    • Agree: animalogic, Dieter Kief
  2. The ‘humanities’ and ‘social sciences’ are completely divorced from the concept of empirical evidence. They make stuff up as they go along and via consensus discern their version of truth which become a new ‘fact’ relied upon to discover the next truth and fact, wash, rinse, repeat.

    These disciplines shouldn’t exist at their present level because what they have are just opinions masquerading as deep knowledge. STEM fields have empirical evidence. The squishy humanities and social sciences have opinions backed up by made up mumbo jumbo.

    A huge part of the problem is that we have completely fraudulent ‘professions’ that claim the right to pontificate on their supposed area of expertise and demand we listen to them because they have PhD’s. What they really have is an OPINION on a topic that is no better or worse than anyone else’s opinion and their PhD’s aren’t worth spit.

    Let me list just a few of the fraudulent professions: Law, Economics, Astronomy, Cosmology, Psychology, Psychiatry, all the ‘social sciences’ in general, …

    These supposed ‘professions’ for the most part can’t PROVE anything. They have theories that in extreme cases are deployed as FACTS in normal conversation.

    Take for example Astronomy/Cosmology – Black Hole, Neutron Stars, Big Bang, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, … None of this has the slightest bit of actual evidence to back it up. The ball got rolling when a Belgian Priest concocted Big Bang out of nothing.

    Look at Law – people have been imprisoned for marijuana offenses and today we have companies doing IPO’s whose product is Mary Jane. Speeding is a made up crime to generate revenue. Money Laundering is bogus to allow the state to criminalize financial transactions they don’t like.

    Psychiatry is BS from one end to the other. It almost disappeared as a ‘profession’, but was saved by big pharma as an avenue to dispense drugs with side effects worse than any imagined disease these frauds purport to treat.

    Economics can’t prove anything. They can’t even do a postmortem on an event to say why it happened without getting completely opposite OPINIONS from other economists.

    You get the picture. These are not professions. These are frauds. Although what happened to this individual is problematic, one less practitioner of a fraudulent profession is a good thing.

    • Replies: @anon
  3. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:

    Even though you’re wrong on some of this stuff, I got a good laugh at the way you wrote about it. I agree with you on law, economics, psychology, psychiatry and the social sciences.
    But not on astronomy and cosmology. These are based on theory combined with empirical evidence, and if you delve into them more deeply you’ll see that they’re not dreamy rambling.
    As for PROOF, science doesn’t prove anything…but it gives us the best explanation we have of things with the current understanding we have, and one of its beauties and claims to respect is the fact that it always holds itself up to criticism and being shown to be in error. Thus your demand for PROOF is unreasonable.t
    In general, keep in mind that an informed, educated opinion can be better than just any old opinion.
    By the way, that Belgian was way smarter than just your everyday monk.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  4. Astronomy / Cosmology / Astrophysics / etc are, in particular, more BS than fact these days.

    When Astronomy was peering thru a telescope and discovering worlds, craters, etc, it was science. When the entire field started to apply patch after patch to the bogus “Big Bang THEORY’, they went off into the weeds.

    “… a theory built on questionable assumptions should never be the basis for new theories.” – Stephen Smith

    The creation out of nothing of neutron stars, black hole, dark matter, dark energy, pulsars, etc to keep Big Bang going for just a while longer is my beef. Not one of these things has any actual empirical evidence to back it up. When a Cosmologists points at a galaxy and proclaims he sees a black hole at its center, he is telling you he is seeing a unicorn. What they have is mathematics that says these things are possible IF gravity rules the universe, which it probably doesn’t.

    Electromagnetism is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity and Plasma Physics has a much better explanation for what is seen in the cosmos and has lab experiments to back up its claims. People like Halton Arp, a protegee of Hubble, cataloged hundreds of galaxies where red shift couldn’t explain the observations. For his trouble, he was denied telescope time and hounded out of the US, eventually passing away in Germany.

    People like Anthony Peratt, a Plasma Physicist and researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory, has studied ancient rock carvings that appear to contain similar shapes from all around the world and asked a simple question – ‘what caused unrelated primitive people to draw these almost identical shapes?’. He concluded it was plasma displays in the heavens and then ran the actual plasma experiments to reproduce those shapes in a laboratory. Look up his work and be astounded by the correlation between the drawings and empirical experimentation.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Dieter Kief
  5. anon[166] • Disclaimer says:

    RoatanBill, I think you’re using different words to make the same mistakes as initially.
    You praise ‘facts’. As in, ‘this is a FACT and I can PROVE it.’
    Anyone who hasn’t personally set foot on those worlds seen in telescopes has to make up their mind about what to think of the observations. And then try to learn more by working with those assumptions, while allowing them to be tested.
    The big bang theory of the ‘start’ of this universe is currently thought to be a good explanation not because of the name or the fact that it’s kind of neat, but because it’s supported by a lot of good scientific observation, calculation and theory which holds together as a whole. Black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, etc. aren’t ‘patches’. They are concepts which we arrive at, whether their existence makes us feel uncomfortable or not, and not by our choice but by what the science tells us makes sense of the observations as a whole. And making sense not just about one phenomenon but tying together all of these complex entities, is an indication that we’re on the right track . The fact that something else, like plasma, can create the same shapes doesn’t mean that plasma IS doing so. Science will tell what is the BEST explanation. There are alternative answers to questions – some good and some bad. As David Deutsch points out, a GOOD explanation is one which cannot be easily changed. And the science behind these phenomena cannot easily be changed and still hold together.

    • Agree: Jus' Sayin'...
  6. I’ll give a few bucks, but, unfortunately, it likely won’t matter. Might as well be suing the Red Guards under Mao.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Anonynous
  7. Svevlad says:

    It’s time to just stop trying with western universities and move to places where these teachings are considered common sense

    We here really need someone to replace these cucked academics here, here they’re too incompetent and lack political support

    • Replies: @Anonynous
  8. @anon

    By the way, that Belgian was way smarter than just your everyday monk.

    Gregor Mendel was an everyday monk.

    • Replies: @Cortes
  9. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I’ll give a few bucks, but, unfortunately, it likely won’t matter. Might as well be suing the Red Guards under Mao.

    Isn’t libel in England “guilty until proven innocent”?

  10. Anonynous says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    No. It’s no longer about armed, physical violence. It’s about what side wills its rights, and pushes for them, more.

    Things are running the way they presently are because what’s there besides the dominant “political correctness” is indifference.

  11. Anonynous says:

    You will never have what authentic Western university was in any other place, though. You may have fragments and fractions of it.
    If you want the full package you have to restore it here.

  12. Realist says:

    The creation out of nothing of neutron stars, black hole, dark matter, dark energy, pulsars, etc to keep Big Bang going for just a while longer is my beef.

    Neutron stars and pulsars are not created out of nothing. But I agree that black holes are suspect and dark matter and dark energy are very suspect. Sadly physicists have allowed mathematics to drive physics, rather than use math as a tool. This has lured physics down dumbass street with such ideas as string and multiverse theories.

  13. @RoatanBill

    I recently spoke to a physicist – for quite some nighttime hours, and one thing he came up with was: Most of physics now is utterly irrelevant in everyday contexts as soon as you leave out the proto-religious side of it.

    Dark holes might well be a possible explanation to fill the holes in current models of the universe – but: These are questions that by the sheer hight of formal education, that is needed to follow them, hardly anybody on earth outside of those inner circles which constitute the debates has to give up on – can’t debate really. That is pretty unsatisfactory, I’d hold.

    Now come – – – Halton Arp and Anthony Peratt. Ok. And then what?

    The truth is, that this story starts to become more and more boring – from the standpoint of physicists, even.

    What I don’t get is the fascination of an (in almost every case) utterly clueless public for this kind of stuff.

    If I look at it from the metaphysical (or – god forbid: religious) perspective, most of these things seem to be pretty naked and poor too. So what? Enhance scientific progress to the n-th degree? – I can explain this indeed to a kid, that this is no good thing in itself, at least not necessarily so in any case.

    I wish for more physicists to take a stand and claim publicly, that a lot of this dark matter, dark energy, black holes stuff is getting boring – the longer it takes place the more so.

  14. Yeah, Science. (Whatever that is). Thanks for the thalidomide, Science.

  15. Eh – it would be nice if paypal was added to make a donation to the legal defense fund of Noah Carl. My wife helped me out with her credit card, otherwise, I would have had a problem.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  16. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Dieter Kief

    Paypal would have zero interest in helping out Noah Carl.

    Paypal should change their name to Paycomrade.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  17. @lavoisier

    paypal works fine for my Steve Sailer donations. No problems.

  18. kclark says:

    I’m trying to donate, but the entry field for credit card stops at 14 digits. AE has 15, MC/Visa has 16. Any suggestions?

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  19. So sorry, don’t know how to fix that, but will pass on your enquiry now.

  20. @kclark

    According to Noah, the site takes 16 digit cards. Probably best to just try again.

    • Replies: @kclark
  21. kclark says:
    @James Thompson

    Thanks. Went through fine today. Go figure.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS