On 27 Feb 2005 15:10:36 -0800, "Dr.Dog"  wrote:

>
>bernxard{at}yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
>> The Bell Curve has stood up to all attacks.
>
>
>Wrong. It's been thoroughly debunked as the junk science it is.
>
>http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/debunk/dBell.htm
>

As usual, there's no "debunking" at all - just PC dislike.
(and the obligatory ref to Gould's silly and dishonest
"Mismeasure...")

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/T/Th/The_Bell_Curve.htm
"In an attempt to defend the book, 52 experts in the
study of intelligence and related fields signed a
notice, published in The Wall Street Journal, December
13, 1994, in support of some of the conclusions in
The Bell Curve."

The statement is here:
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html
"Prologue
Since the publication of "The BELL CURVE," many commentators
have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate
current scientific evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in
the media as discredited are actually firmly supported.

This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream
among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the
nature, origins, and practical consequences of individual
and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote
more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the
research has revealed in recent decades. The following
conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks,
professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence."
(25 statements about group and individual IQ/performace
follow)

>
>
>
>Dog

Perhaps you should stick to Lysenkoism.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/28/05 5:35:04 PM ---