Franz Boas

'''"Libelling the dead"''': Nextel ringtones Jacquerie27 remarks "you can't libel the dead." Others might say, "It is only safe to libel the dead." Abbey Diaz User:Wetman/Wetman 21:36, 6 Jan 2005

:Not according to the ancient Romans, who said "Free ringtones WikiQuote:List of Latin proverbs/De mortuis nil nisi bonum". Majo Mills Jacquerie27/Jacquerie27 21:44, 6 Jan 2005

J27, I reverted your change to the article; I ''did'' keep a reference to MacDonald in the article, but it is a shorter passage in a more appropriate section. I also added your citation and link. I have done this because it is fair to included these sources. The fact remains that MacDonald is simply reviving earlier anti-Semitic arguments. A discussion of MacDonald most definitely does not belong in a section on "criticisms." This is for two reasons (aside from the anti-Semitism). First, I have never seen MacDonald cited in any of the reputable, scholarly (meaning, published in a peer-reviewed journal concerning intellectual history, German culture and history, or anthropology) literature on Boas. Second, there have in fact been many published critiques of Boas's work by real anthropologists, natural scientists, and so on. It is these critiques that should go in such a section. Mosquito ringtone Slrubenstein/Slrubenstein 17:03, 19 Jan 2005

:The current reference to MacDonald is highly POV, and it's ludicrous to say that only specialists in Boas's own fields can pronounce on Boas. Cross-fertilization is part of how serious science advances: it's only fundamentalists and ideologues who close their minds to new or opposing ideas. Sabrina Martins Jacquerie27/Jacquerie27 10:24, 21 Jan 2005

There is no question that MacDonald's claims are anti-semitic. But the real issue here is that he is such a minor, fringe character that I really don't think he should be mentioned at all. I never said that one has to be an American Anthropologist or even an anthropologist to evaluate Boas. But an evaluation of Boas has to be based on facts, not fantasy, and should be recognized by the the community of scholars. I do not close my mind to new or opposing ideas first, anthropologists have worked within a Darwinian framework ever since Boas steered the field in that direction a hundred years ago. Second, concerning MacDonald specifically,. I head his book and the chapter on Boas carefully, and it is not based on serious scholarship there is no mahor claim that he makes that is supported by facts. I am open to new ideas but they need to be well-argued and supported by facts. Elsewhere I went into specifics on what is wrong with MacDonals. Nextel ringtones Slrubenstein/Slrubenstein 16:32, 21 Jan 2005

I wrote this on the anti-Semitism page:

:I have read MacDonald and he is either stupid or malign, but it is one or the other. Although he is a psychologist by training, the book you cite is not based on any psychological research (experimental, or clinical) the research he is qualified to do. Instead, he is drawing on historical documents, and it is clear that he has no training in history because he makes major mistakes in his methods of research and analysis. It is contemptable that a man who himself is so sloppy in his methods is criticizing the scientific credentials of others. Let me give you just one example. In order to support his claim that Boas's approach reflected or served Jewish interests, MacDonald quotes Margaret Mead. Mead was explaining how she got Boas to change his mind and let her do the research in Samoa she wanted to do. She tole Boas that he "should behave like a liberal, democratic, modern man, not like a Prussian aristocrat." MacDonald uses this quote to support the claim that Boas's demeaner or values were ultimately Jewish. This is either a willful misreading, or a reflection of how MacDonald is blinded by his own prejudice. It is clear from the quote that Mead felt Boas most often acted like a "Prussian aristocrat." This is not surprising, since he was trained in German universities. Indeed, other historical sources (comments by other students and rivals) identify Boas and his students (like Kroeber and Lowie) as Germans or Prussians explicitly not as Jews. It is also clear that Mead felt that Boas idealized or valued a "liberal, democratic, modern" character. This is also not surprising, given that Boas himself admits that his family celebrated the ideals of the revolutions of 1848 (which were not led by Jews, and did not involve Jewish values or interests). Moreover, it is clear that Boas's own work draws on a liberal tradition in German scholarship German, not Jewish dating back to Immanuel Kant and involving 18th century non-Jewish thinkers like Herder and von Humboldt, up to many of Boas's non-Jewish professors when he was in the university. Had MacDonald done any of the research that a trained historian would have done, he would have discovered all of this. There are a tremendous number of studies not only of Boas and his circles but of the German liberal tradition and what was going on in German scholarship (philosophy, linguistics, physical anthropology, geography, comparative anatomy, zoology, etc.) at the time. MacDonald is ignorant of or discounts, for political reasons all of it.
It is very clear not only that MacDonald has not done any serious research on Boas; whatever material he has he willfully misinterprets to support his points. No wonder the only person who ever heard of him is J27. This is the perfect example of a fringe or crank theory. In short, MacDonald's views of Boas say little about Boas but much about MacDonald. If they belong anywhere, it is in an article on MacDonald. Not here. Abbey Diaz Slrubenstein/Slrubenstein 20:56, 21 Jan 2005

::As I say elsewhere: "I'm not an expert on Boas and even if I was, people who look at Free ringtones Slrubenstein#China and Socialist States/User:Slrubenstein will see what getting into an argument with you is like. As another great German once said: ''Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens''." Majo Mills User:Jacquerie27/Jacquerie27 10:26, 24 Jan 2005

J, I have criticized you on the basis of your research and what you have written. For you to respond by calling me stupid is a personal attack and is not only inappropriate, it does not serve your cause well. Cingular Ringtones Slrubenstein/Slrubenstein 17:23, 24 Jan 2005

::And it serves your cause well to say I'm afraid of the truth? I haven't called you "stupid": I've said (at most) that you (like all of us) are capable of stupidity. cio last Jacquerie27/Jacquerie27 10:20, 27 Jan 2005

:If demanding accuracy and rigor is a 'point of view' then I suppose SLRubenstein is POV in this respect. The question here is whether wikipedia is a place where absolutely anyone can say absolutely anything in the name of free speech and the progress of science, or whether we are trying to build an encyclopedia full of good, well-researched entries. MacDonald relies primarily on secondary sources, and there have been systematically documented examples of his misuse of those sources. While no one has taken the time to dissect the section on Boas, anyone with any familiarity with the works that MacDonald cites can immediately see their shortcomings. I don't care whether it's antisemitic or not it's simply poorly done, and you don't need a Ph.D. to see that. He has nonetheless produced an entry on Franz Boas that is better than and certainly longer than! Sol Tax's entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica and is on par with the entry in the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Is that not what want?

:Serious science is self-correcting and ruthlessly self-critical, but it is also progressive. Contemporary molecular biologists want to do molecular biology, not endlessly step through the arguments against Lamarkianism in the name of 'cross-fertilization' with people who have not bothered to carefully work through the argument so far and the progress we've made because of it. It's particularly strange to see SLRubenstein accussed of some sort of academic elitism given the fact that as far as I know SLRubenstein is not an academic and has never attempted to suggest that we should listen to him 'because I'm an expert and you're not'.

:These endless debates about Macdonald on pages I frequent are exhausting, and dealing with them take away time from making serious contributions to the wikipedia. The bad feelings that often result make me not want to contribute to wikipedia. There's no doubt in my mind that the wikipedia would be a better place, and I would be contributing to it more, if there were more people doing work like the work that SLRubenstein has done on the Franz Boas page. perhaps reflecting Alex Golub/Rex 22:27, 21 Jan 2005

::''In 1982 the evolutionary psychologist Kevin B. MacDonald resurrected the notion of a "Jewish science" in his book ''The Culture Of Critique''; this book has been criticized for shoddy scholarship and anti-Semitism, and was described as "nauseating" by the writer Judith Shulevitz)''. So "resurrected the notion of a 'Jewish science'" is NPOV? And "criticized for shoddy scholarship" doesn't imply his scholarship is actually shoddy and is widely accepted as such? ''There is no question that MacDonald's claims are anti-semitic.'' Just as there's no question that Slr is objective and has a firm grasp of logic and the English language. See palatial residences Slrubenstein#China and Socialist States/User:Slrubenstein camps this User:Jacquerie27/Jacquerie27 10:26, 24 Jan 2005

Resurrected the notion of Jewish science is certainly accurate. After the defeat of the Nazis, who else has talked about Jewish Science besides MacDonald? By the way, my discussion on China and socialist states reveals only that I do considerable research before making claims. examine this Slrubenstein/Slrubenstein 17:23, 24 Jan 2005

:The Nazi notion of "Jewish science" applied to figures like Einstein, who the Nazis thought was a charlatan and who MacDonald, in complete contrast, thinks was an outstanding objective scientist. Not only has MacDonald never used the term "Jewish science" or anything comparable to it, he doesn't accept that Freud, Marx and Boas were actually scientists. So your use of the term is an attempt to smear by association and is clearly POV. As for China and socialist states: I accept that you do considerable research, but considerable research was not necessary to understand the point that was being made to you. I think you're stubborn and authoritarian, which was why you wouldn't accept it. auctioning four Jacquerie27/Jacquerie27 10:20, 27 Jan 2005

*Sigh* On 6 January I removed the comment that Judith Shulevitz considered Macdonald 'naseating' because I considered it POV. I replaced it with a less heated claim that Macdonald had been criticized for 'shoddy scholarship'. Less than an hour later you, Jacquerie 27, added the comment about Shulevitz back into the entry. Thus 1) the term 'shoddy scholarship' in the Boas entry can't be used as proof of SLRubenstein's POV in the article because he did not write it. 2)To criticize SLRubenstein's NPOV because he approves of the statement about Shulevitz when you yourself have sought to keep it in the article after its deletion simply doesn't make sense. I am not interested in whatever long history SLRubenstein has with you and other people on other pages. Nor do I doubt that he has a POV that he expresses in real life, in talk pages, on #irc etc we all do. My point is that the entry on Franz Boas is a good one, and that it demonstrates an admirable concern with accuracy and rigor. advantage you Alex Golub/Rex 21:02, 24 Jan 2005

:'''Bigger sigh''' You obviously don't understand POV/NPOV. If I, as an Wikipedia editor, say MacDonald's theories are "nauseating" or "anti-Semitic", that is POV, because there is no consensus on those claims. However, if I report that Judith Shulevitz calls MacDonald's theories "nauseating", that is NPOV: no-one disputes that JS has said that. sexpot bale Jacquerie27/Jacquerie27 10:20, 27 Jan 2005

1) I am glad to see that in your latest entry you are no longer using the quotation regarding 'shoddy scholarship' as evidence of SLRubenstein's bias. I take it that we have reached agreement that this was inappropriate. 2)In your previous entry you use the quotation from SLRubeinstein "MacDonald's work was described as 'nauseating' by Judith Shulevitz" as proof that SLRubenstein is POV. However in your latest entry you explain to me that this is a perfectly appropriate usage for a wikipedia entry when no-one disputes that Judith Shulevitz has said that. I take it, then, that you now agree with me that SLRubenstein's inclusion of this statement in the wikipedia entry is not an indication of his POV in the article. Is this correct? 3) You have also claimed that SLRubenstein's inclusion of the phrase"Kevin MacDonald's works have been criticized as being anti-semitic" is POV. However presumably if he could demonstrate that someone has in fact articulated this claim then we could say (using the same principle you articulated above in the case of Judith Shulevitz) that it was not POV to include it since? Is that correct? If so perhaps SLRubenstein would be so good as to document who specifically has claimed MacDonald is anti-semitic would that satisfy you? course scary Alex Golub/Rex 18:40, 27 Jan 2005

:No, I don't agree with a lot of that, but I'm not wasting more time arguing. Boas isn't worth it, as time will show, and the sort of people who take him seriously are hardly susceptible to rational argument in any case. administration prior Jacquerie27/Jacquerie27 09:12, 28 Jan 2005

It's disappointing that you don't want to continue this dicussion since it has certainly been nothing if not rational indeed, even nitpicky. However undoubtedly we both have better things to do. Take care and thanks for engaging with me. empty that Alex Golub/Rex 06:45, 29 Jan 2005

:Thank you. ny video Jacquerie27/Jacquerie27 15:36, 31 Jan 2005

"Jewish science"

Like resistance, reasoning is futile, but here's another attempt. Slr — is there a consensus that MacDonald has resurrected "Jewish science"? No, there is not, therefore it is POV to say that he has done so, as someone with your length of service on the Wiki should know by now. If you can produce specific critics who have said this, cite them: that will be NPOV. The small restored section on MacDonald is a tiny part of the article, but it will no doubt be too threatening to remain (as MacDonald's theory predicts). Finally, I'm more convinced than ever that you should convert to Catholicism: this article is a fine example of click after hagiography. losing days Jacquerie27/Jacquerie27 18:24, 28 Jan 2005

:That he is talking about Jewish Science is from his own book, chapter two. bullet densities Slrubenstein/Slrubenstein 20:21, 28 Jan 2005

::Can you quote from it then? If you've read the book I apologize for assuming recently that you hadn't. louise lasser Jacquerie27/Jacquerie27 15:36, 31 Jan 2005

:As far as hagiography, what statement about Boas in this article is inaccurate? What important activity ''by'' Boas has been left out? cataloging pejoratives Slrubenstein/Slrubenstein 20:22, 28 Jan 2005

::It's the tone that is hagiographic: you obviously admire him and regard him as very important. ala georgia Jacquerie27/Jacquerie27 15:36, 31 Jan 2005

::An example: ''Finally, anthropologists continue to '''honor''' his critique of racial ideologies. In his 1963 book, Race: The History of an Idea in America, Thomas Gossett wrote that "It is possible that Boas did more to combat race prejudice than any other person in history."'' Should scientists "honor" a colleague's ideas? That sounds more like religion or ideology than science.

Look at articles mentioning Boas in anthropology journals and you will see that they honor him. This is a factual claim and I think it is accurate.

"Tone" is a slippery and vague thing to hang any comment on. It doesn't matter at all what I think of Boas. But virtually every account of american anthropology regards him as very important. A good article on Boas will give an account of him that allows a reader to evaluate his importance. That is why I included detailed descriptions of his work in various fields.

:I don't dispute that it's factually accurate to say anthropologists honor him, I just think "honor" is inappropriate in science, at least in the sense you seem to be using. physician head Jacquerie27/Jacquerie27 10:45, 2 Feb 2005

::Btw, what do anthropologists currently think of faster as Stephen Jay Gould and ''The Mismeasure of Man''? From what I can gather, some psychometrics/psychometricians regard the book as verging on fraudulent. Jacquerie27/Jacquerie27 15:44, 31 Jan 2005

You'd be better off asking physical anthropologists. I have never heard anyone claim the book is fraudulent. I know that it is still widely read, assigned and cited in physical anthropology, although it was written for a popular audience. As with any scientist, people continue to debate various ideas of his (spandrels, punctuated equilibrium), and I do not think that many people are engaging his ideas in his last book. But my sense is that everyone still considers him an important, credible scientist. I dsitinguish between attacks on his credibility versus debate about specific propositions. The latter kind of debate defines science. But the former kind of attack, I think most people belive, is politically motivated and has nothing to do with his creds as a scientist. Slrubenstein/Slrubenstein 16:24, 31 Jan 2005

:I don't think evolutionists take him as seriously as outsiders do, but time will show. About "Jewish science": can you quote the passage from chapter two that justifies the term? Do you mean he refers to it as used by the Nazis? I'd say he does so in order to dismiss it. Jacquerie27/Jacquerie27 10:45, 2 Feb 2005

I am not sure what you mean by evolutionists all of the evolutionary scientists I know, or know of, have a very high opinion of Gould and his research. As for the chapter 2 quotes, it will have to wait until I can go back to the library and check the book out again, but I will do it, Slrubenstein/Slrubenstein 16:14, 2 Feb 2005

:This is from Stephen Jay Gould: Jacquerie27/Jacquerie27 18:49, 2 Feb 2005

::Gould was considered by many outsiders to be one of the pre-eminent theoreticians in his field. However, most evolutionary biologists disagreed with the way that Gould presented his views; they feel that Gould gave the public, as well as scientists in other fields, a very distorted picture of evolutionary theory. Few evolutionary biologists question his motives, insight, or his new ideas. However, many hold that his claims to have overthrown standard views of neo-Darwinism were exaggerated to the point of falsehood, and that his claims of replacing adaptation as a key component of natural selection were erroneous. Biologist John Maynard Smith wrote that Gould "is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory"; another biologist, Ernst Mayr, wrote of Gould, and those who agree with him, that they "quite conspicuously misrepresent the views of evolutionary biology's leading spokesmen."

Dude, I have seen far worse said at professional meetings. This is just typical of the kind of debates among scientists. The problem with this paragraph is that it fails to distinguish between much of his work. Just as every physicist accepts Einstein's theory of specific relativity but think he was wasting his time working on a unified field theory, evolutionary scientists accept a good deal of what Gould wrote as good science, and criticze other things. This paragraph doesn't give a citation but I bet that it is refering to his last book which even he knew was very speculative and creative. I bet over time most scientists will reject his most radical claims in that book but it doesn't change the fact that his research was and continues to be well-regarded. I would delete the whole paragraph or move it to talk until whoever wrote provided sources and the context for those quotes. I am absolutely certain that they are not rejecting all or even most of his work. Slrubenstein/Slrubenstein 19:50, 2 Feb 2005

Einstein has been falsified : see g.o.müller's 4000 titles anti-relativist bibliography and the 130 fault catalogue on "www.ekkehard-friebe.de"

Alexander Friedmann's big bang theory has been falsified by the falsification of Einstein, too


Boas has been falsified : see John Randal Baker's "Race"(15-points-IQ gap, character differences)

the Jewish God doesn't exist: see Feuerbach

The Jews are not Armenid, they are an own race with characteristic qualities not to be found in normal Armenids

95% of the "Western" doctrine is Jewish destroying the West and Western thought

:I'm not surprised you support Jacquerie. Jayjg/Jayjg User_talk:Jayjg/(talk) 04:19, 13 Feb 2005

Hagiography

Reads like it was written by a member of a cult - Xed/XED.User talk:Xed/talk 01:10, 17 Feb 2005