>The title seems to intentionally misrepresent the retraction to push an agenda (or the author has some issues with basic logic) Almost certainly the former.

>The title seems to intentionally misrepresent the retraction to push an agenda (or the author has some issues with basic logic) Almost certainly the former. Notice the dismissal of scientific evidence because they dislike the implications. Every study on the subject has shown clear racial IQ differences. That is not "pseudo-science". Arguing about why that observation exists is fine, but pretending the observation itself must be wrong because it hurts ones feelings is not reasonable. >The retraction is that the strong/definitive proof that "the camel has two humps" was fabricated/exaggerated. It isn't even that. The bimodal distribution is very clearly there, the "retraction" is just to the claim that this is an innate characteristic. Something which was widely repeated, but which the actual paper never even claimed. >The camel has gone back to having an unknown number of humps It still has two humps, we just don't know why. But we never knew that in the first place.