Skip to main content

View Diary: Rush Limbaugh is right about Jason Richwine, Ph.D. (84 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  For the record, really... (0+ / 0-)

    It is perfectly possible and common to argue against predictions before the facts are in. If you predict 100 heads in a row based on your latest theory of coin flippery, I would "argue against" your prediction using probability theory...and win. In this case, the argument is about the predictive model, so we don't need to wait for the coin.

    I would also argue against your overly broad and unfair characterization of scholars in the social sciences: "because something can be measured, the measurement has meaning." Typically, a metric is considered meaningful not because it exists, but because its utility has actually been demonstrated: for example, the relationship between the metric, "years of education" and employment and earnings is well established. Now, we can very effectively measure the circumference of your head and map the lumps on your scalp, but scholars today would not think that measurement has any meaning...they ruled that out a long time ago.

    IQ is a relatively useful measure of cognitive ability for some populations. Richwine assumes the meaning of IQ is generalizable across diverse populations. Fortunately, social scientists who measure stuff are picking apart those kinds of assumptions. Quantification is easy (sort of), but that is not the goal of the vast majority of social scientists. We seek meaningful measures.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site