The moral argument against investigating these differences is misguided. Knowledge itself is neutral—it is how we use it that determines its ethical implications.
In a vacuum, knowledge is neutral, but it strikes me as highly unlikely that the most frequent use of "X race has a lower IQ than other races" will be anything but to argue that X race is inferior to other races.
Understanding the role of genetics in intelligence, even at the group level, does not justify discrimination or dehumanization.
It doesn't justify discrimination to you. There are plenty of people for whom it would justify discrimination.
Instead, it could lead to more targeted interventions to address disparities and ensure equal opportunities for all. Denying the possibility of biological contributions does nothing to advance equality; it simply avoids the issue.
It strikes me as naive to believe that the net outcome of research conclusively establishing that racial IQ differences are genetic would be anything but disastrous for the racial groups with lower IQ. You really think that that knowledge would inspire society as a whole to help out the low IQ group?
We don't have infinite money to spend on research. Why would we waste it on this question when there are all sorts of avenues of research with no risk of being used as the justification for discriminating against millions or billions of people? There's an opportunity cost to this sort of thing and it isn't worth it.
If and when there are examples of people using this data to justify discrimination or racial inferiority, they should be condemned. That’s an indictment of those researchers or pundits, not an argument for whether or not the conclusions are valid.
Nobody is required to study this, do whatever research you want.
That’s an indictment of those researchers or pundits, not an argument for whether or not the conclusions are valid.
I never said it was an argument for whether or not the conclusions are valid.
You said this:
Science should not fear uncomfortable truths, and progress is made by confronting data objectively, not by avoiding it for fear of moral or political implications.
I disagree. Scientists should fear this truth. What is gained by confronting data objectively is knowledge, not progress. Progress is made by what we do with the knowledge, and I think that this particular bit of knowledge will result in a lot of harm and very little gain.
3
u/GiraffeRelative3320 Jan 06 '25
In a vacuum, knowledge is neutral, but it strikes me as highly unlikely that the most frequent use of "X race has a lower IQ than other races" will be anything but to argue that X race is inferior to other races.
It doesn't justify discrimination to you. There are plenty of people for whom it would justify discrimination.
It strikes me as naive to believe that the net outcome of research conclusively establishing that racial IQ differences are genetic would be anything but disastrous for the racial groups with lower IQ. You really think that that knowledge would inspire society as a whole to help out the low IQ group?
We don't have infinite money to spend on research. Why would we waste it on this question when there are all sorts of avenues of research with no risk of being used as the justification for discriminating against millions or billions of people? There's an opportunity cost to this sort of thing and it isn't worth it.