A comment at GNXP’s open thread (too messed up by the recent switch from Haloscan for me to link to) led me to Epistemology & Endocrinology, at a blog I hadn’t heard of before titled “The Unsilenced Science”. The author’s background is in medicine, and for more from that perspective he recommends this segment on NPR. The main topic would be of interest to n/a, as it concerns racial differences in hormones, but I thought his discussion of anthropocentric global warming and human biodiversity was more interesting. Genetics/psychology and climatology are rather distant branches of science. We shouldn’t a priori expect someone’s position on one topic to correlate with their take on the other. But that does seem to be what we see. Perhaps there are some GSS questions I could look at, but for now I’ll just have to use examples. Half Sigma has been a great proponent of the acronym “HBD”. He is also very critical of AGW, often highlighting low temperatures and claiming that environmentalism of “Gaianism” is a religion taking the place of Christianity. Mencius Moldbug used AGW and HNU (human neurological uniformity) along with Keynes-Fisher macroeconomics as examples of the bogus pseudoscience we have been afflicted with ever since our rejection of monarchy. Dennis Mangan dissents from the mainstream (which I’ll define in terms of popular media rather than scientific specialists or the general public) on those as well as many other scientific issues (and speaking of Mangan and ideological combinations…). Similarly, I’ve heard a few creationists claiming that ClimateGate undermines the scientific case for evolution, and “fundamentalist” at the Mises blog once argued with me that Austrians should learn from the successful strategy of creationist intellectuals! As “nooffensebut” argues in the original post, I think people are just reaching for arguments, however plausible they may be on their own merits, that support an agenda they have. The common thread here seems to be that “liberals” or “the establishment” believes in one thing, and boy would they look stupid if that was shown to be wrong.

The author also dissents from the term “human biodiversity”, preferring instead “race realism”. I disagree, because the differences aren’t just cosmetic. One obvious thing “race realism” leaves out is gender. Furthermore, there’s a lot of biologically-based differences within race/gender categories. The Bell Curve was originally going to be about individual differences generally, before it became focused on IQ. Even after that, race only took up a relatively small part of the book, with most of the text focusing on differences within whites just to avoid the distraction. If group means were made equal, it would not greatly diminish the amount of variance that exists in the entire population. It might, however, become easier to discuss that variance.

As a follow-up to my previous post, he also seems sympathetic to China’s activities in Tibet, as evidenced by Why I am a Supremacist. I agree with his general gist: science has done a lot for me, what have most white people done that they should deserve any loyalty from me?