>"On the specific topic of IQ and scientific racism, the "centrist" position of "just asking questions" has been a cloak for agendas and not caring about the truth for a while now"
That is the price for _having_ a truth. All sides must be allowed to argue, because sometimes _you_ are the one on the wrong side and just don't know it.
You can’t simply join scientific debate while ignoring the existing findings.
Genetics and race are almost completely unrelated with black in America including people that 7 out of 8 white great grand parents. So, arguing your measurements are of genetic differences needs to account for such non biological social constructs. Good faith research can follow the social construct of race, but it needs to address that elephant in the room.
I was just pointing out that we must all be willing to both prove others wrong and be proven wrong or we can never correct anything.
And, we must all be willing to accept and work with the difficulty this causes for many people.
But we must never, ever stifle speech because it's upsetting or we disagree with it. At the very least because the pendulum swings and any oppression we support today _will_ be turned against us or others in the future.
That’s the point I was addressing. It’s not the responsibility of the scientific community to pay attention to everyone. The threshold of communication is an awareness of the fields existing models and results.
Getting published in a reputable journal is generally a low bar and probably a good yardstick for joining the conversation. That might seem excessive, but it drastically improves the signal to noise ratio and frankly works.
Now, complaints after that point are reasonable, even Einstein disliked QM. However, eventually the old guard dies and new people are willing to consider new idea at which point science marches on.
That is the price for _having_ a truth. All sides must be allowed to argue, because sometimes _you_ are the one on the wrong side and just don't know it.