3 ms·
>> To identify factual inaccuracies, Warne’s team used as a benchmark a consensus statement on intelligence research published in 1997 by Linda Gottfredson et a
by smallgovt 9y ago
>> To identify factual inaccuracies, Warne’s team used as a benchmark a consensus statement on intelligence research published in 1997 by Linda Gottfredson et al
Is the best way to define 'fact' really a twenty year old study?
Also, even if the results are believed, it doesn't seem to be a big deal. Afterall, they're reporting an average of 1 factual inaccuracy per book. When each book presents hundreds or thousands of truth claims, is 1 factual inaccuracy per book noteworthy? I'm willing to bet a much larger percentage of the 'scientific consensus' they define as 'fact' is in fact wrong.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tokenadult 9y agoI know eminent IQ researchers back at the time who declined invitations to sign on to the Gottfredson consensus statement (with good reason, in my opinion). On the other hand, it is still a reasonably fair statement of a lot of the consensus among IQ researchers, but as you say now twenty years out of date. (I read the consensus statement right after it was published.)
- prepend 9y agoThe next paragraph explains why. The study is still accurate and they picked something old enough that should be known outside of specialists. If they compared to present day research then naturally many books published over the past 10 years wouldn’t know about it.