Quote:
Originally Posted by Clovis8
Bob that is not what Harris means by context. They are taking about cultural and historical context. Not the design context of a study.
But even that can be important. The basis of scientific studies are based on results of previous studies. That's why studies contain a literature review at the beginning: to provide a brief history of the areas that are relevant to the study being done.
Cultural context can matter depending on the study. If you're studying non-human specimens, obviously cultural context is not particularly relevant. But with human subjects, it can be depending on the area of study. If you're studying human behavior, then social norms related to one's culture have to be considered a motivating factor for a person's actions.
We have to also keep in mind that Murray himself is not a scientist in the traditional sense. He's a policy analyst and adviser who works for the AEI. He uses his data to advise policymakers. So when he tells them what they should do, he's extrapolating his data and discussing it within the context of American government and politics.
Yet, Harris thinks that shouldn't be done. Seems to me that he just wants to quiet the likes of Klein for calling out Murray's work for what it is: racism poorly concealed by scientific integrity. After all if Klein calls Murray's work racist, it means that Harris gave a platform to a racist to disseminate bigotry without any questioning or critiquing and Harris cannot have that blemish on his reputation.
Funny thing is that Harris could have apologized and this whole thing would have gone away. Hell, I didn't know about Vox's article until he brought it up himself and made a big deal about it.
Last edited by SuperUberBob; 06-30-2018 at 01:19 PM.