>From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
>To: <extropians@extropy.com>
>Subject: Re: HR25Show82099 - BS
>Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:29:46 -0700
>
>On Saturday, August 21, 1999 12:07 AM phil osborn <philosborn@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
> > In fact, this is part and parcel of the whole Mensa nonsense propagated
>by
> > Mensa founder Cyril Burt in his massively fraudulent Twin Study, very
>likely
> > the most costly scientific fraud in all history. Burt got his job and
>his
> > title "Father of British Eductation" as a consequence of this famous
>study,
> > which appeared to definitively prove that intelligence was largely
> > determined by heredity. You used to see this quoted in every intro
>psych
> > 101 text.
>
>Burt's data has been deleted from most of the literature because of his
>systematic errors which look more to be the result of his arrogance than of
>premeditated fraud. Arthur Jensen goes over this in _Straight Talk About
>Mental Tests_ (pp124-127) and offers the following conclusion, "the
>deletion
>of Burt's empirical legacy would scarcely make an iota of difference to any
>general conclusion regarding the heritability of intelligence, so much
>greater is the body of more recent and better evidence." This was written
>in 1981.
>
>Now, this is not to say that non-hereditary factors have no impact, but we
>should _not_ adopt the syllogism:
>
> Cyril Burt's data is wrong.
> Cyril Burt's data supports the view that intelligence is inherited.
> Ergo, the view that intelligence is inherited is wrong.
>
>Cheers!
>
>Daniel Ust
> Proud not to be a member of Mensa!
>http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
>
Nice how neatly - and quickly! - that whole chapter was covered over by
academia. That syllogism wasn't my argument, BTW.
Phil Osborn
Waiting for Mensa to repudiate Burt....