Social scientist Noah Carl, who was sacked last week by the University of Cambridge and stripped of his fellowship for conducting research deemed "problematic," on Tuesday released a "devastating point-by-point rebuttal ... of the charged levelled against him by the radical left."
Birkbeck University professor Eric Kaufmann shared Carl's rebuttal on Twitter, writing: "A devastating point-by-point rebuttal by Noah Carl of the charges levelled against him by the radical left, whose smear campaign is strong on religious fervour and guilt-by-association, but weak on logic and evidence."
As to his firing, Carl said he'll "address that question in due course" but for moment he's "still receiving legal advice."
Here's some highlights from Carl's extensive statement:
Last December, 586 academics signed an open letter accusing you of “racist pseudoscience”. That many academics can’t all be wrong, can they?I found this point particularly funny:
Given that the open letter demonstrated a basic lack of understanding of the relevant science, it would seem that 586 academics can indeed all be wrong. For example, as Jeff McMahan pointed out in his comments for the first Quillette Editorial:
One passage in the open letter demands that the various institutions cited "issue a public statement dissociating themselves from research that seeks to establish correlations between race, genes, intelligence and criminality in order to explain one by the other." This seems to imply that it is illegitimate to seek to explain any one of the four characteristics by reference to any one of the others, and thus that no aspect of intelligence can be explained by an individual's genes. I would not trust the competence of anyone who endorses a claim that has that implication to judge the work of a candidate for a research fellowship.And Professor McMahan is absolutely correct: the signatories of the open letter were calling for St Edmund's College to "issue a public statement dissociating themselves" from research backed by overwhelming scientific evidence. In fact, the contribution of genes to variation in human intelligence has been widely accepted by psychologists since at least 1996, when the report 'Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns' was published by the American Psychological Association (APA). This report, co-authored by Professor Ulric Neisser and his colleagues in the aftermath of The Bell Curve debate, concluded that "a sizable part of the variation in intelligence test scores is associated with genetic differences among individuals". Evidence for a genetic contribution to variation in human intelligence has only strengthened since the publication of the APA report.
Didn't you publish a paper in the "white supremacist" journal Mankind Quarterly?It's hilarious how leftists claim to revere science and yet burn heretics like Carl at the stake for performing scientific research which contradicts their leftist dogma.
I did publish a short comment in Mankind Quarterly, at the request of the Editor. However, I do not believe it is accurate to describe Mankind Quarterly as a "white supremacist" journal. The basis of this claim seems to be that most of the journal's founders supported racial segregation and eugenics. Note that one of Mankind Quarterly's founders was the fascist Corrado Gini, who invented the 'Gini coefficient', an extremely important concept in the analysis of income inequality. Another of the journal's founders was the segregationist Henry Garrett, who was also President of the American Psychological Association (APA). By the logic of my critics, this would imply that the Gini coefficient is a "white supremacist" concept and that the APA is a "white supremacist" organisation.
Interestingly, a number of prominent scientific journals and scholarly societies were originally devoted to eugenics. For example, the journal Social Biology was originally called Eugenics Quarterly. The Galton Institute was originally known as the Eugenics Society of London. And The Society for Biodemography and Social Biology was originally known as the American Eugenics Society. Even the American Sociological Review ran an article titled 'Development of a Eugenic Philosophy' back in 1937. While I certainly do not consider myself a "eugenicist", one should also be aware that 'eugenics' encompasses a range of interventions, including some that most people would not consider coercive at all.
Follow InformationLiberation on Twitter, Facebook, Gab and Minds.