Does Philosophy Have Any Guts? By Chris Knight

     I have always been amused by this paradox; that the discipline of philosophy, and I did two years philosophy, failing, at a useless university in America, long ago, prides itself on defending all manners of things, like minds don’t exist, the world is only the elementary units of physics, morality is an illusion, and so on. But, nothing defending the concept of race … oh, that is too problematic for a group of people where it was once said that there is no absurdity that some philosopher has not defended. Oh, there is plenty criticising race, but when an article does appear that is not 1,000 percent politically correct, well, watch out:
  https://www.thecollegefix.com/philosophy-journal-refuses-to-retract-paper-defending-research-on-race-and-intelligence/

“Nearly two years ago, a feminist philosophy journal faced demands to retract a paper that compared “transracialism” to transgenderism. Some of its editors quickly apologized, but were then overruled by the journal’s top editors. Another philosophy journal is facing similar retraction demands for publishing a paper on “group differences in intelligence,” but its editors preemptively said that’s not going to happen. The petition against Philosophical Psychology for publishing “race science” is led by Mark Alfano, whose CV says he currently teaches at the Netherlands’ Delft University of Technology and Australia’s Macquarie University. It calls on editors Cees van Leeuwen and Mitchell Herschbach to retract the paper, apologize, resign or “some combination” of those. As of Thursday night, the petition had under 70 signatures including Alfano’s. While that’s far below the 800 signatures quickly amassed against Rebecca Tuvel’s comparison of Rachel Dolezal to Caitlyn Jenner in Hypatia, the controversy is generating the same battle lines, with scholars debating the merits of the paper and the role of free inquiry in science. Van Leeuwen and Herschbach published an editors’ note the day after the Dec. 23 paper by Nathan Cofnas, a PhD student in philosophy at the University of Oxford, defending free inquiry regardless of the controversy generated by his argument. They followed up with a Facebook statement Tuesday disputing Alfano’s criticisms of the editorial process in his petition and associated blog post, saying he offers “a rather misleading summary of the paper.”

They will “let freedom of expression prevail over instincts to censor unwelcome opinions” while welcoming “responses to what is empirically and normatively controversial about Cofnas’ paper,” the editors wrote. Cofnas told The College Fix in an email that he has received several supportive messages from philosophers in response to the controversy. He’s particularly glad to be at Oxford, where his department has remained committed to free inquiry, he said. Oxford philosopher Jeff McMahan is a founding editor of the forthcoming Journal of Controversial Ideas, “in which scholars will be able to publish on controversial topics pseudonymously,” Cofnas noted. While “powerful people” may “take revenge,” he said, “it’s easier to challenge orthodoxies in philosophy than it is in many other fields,” despite some “groupthink” among philosophers. Another philosophy professor who has publicly tangled with Cofnas over the paper, Yale’s Jason Stanley, told The Fix he disagreed with Alfano’s demands. “No action should be taken with regard to Cofnas and the journal,” he wrote in an email, while noting that “hardly any philosopher has signed on to this petition for retraction.” Stanley’s view is that “papers shouldn’t be retracted and people should feel freedom to advance their views about published papers without fear of being mobbed.”

     Ok, that got me interested, since the author, Nathan Cofnas seems to be a strong defender of free speech, and one of the few remaining philosophers in the true Socratic spirit. Here is some information about the article causing the politically correct to get hot and bothered:
  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2019.1697803

“In a very short time, it is likely that we will identify many of the genetic variants underlying individual differences in intelligence. We should be prepared for the possibility that these variants are not distributed identically among all geographic populations, and that this explains some of the phenotypic differences in measured intelligence among groups. However, some philosophers and scientists believe that we should refrain from conducting research that might demonstrate the (partly) genetic origin of group differences in IQ. Many scholars view academic interest in this topic as inherently morally suspect or even racist. The majority of philosophers and social scientists take it for granted that all population differences in intelligence are due to environmental factors. The present paper argues that the widespread practice of ignoring or rejecting research on intelligence differences can have unintended negative consequences. Social policies predicated on environmentalist theories of group differences may fail to achieve their aims. Large swaths of academic work in both the humanities and social sciences assume the truth of environmentalism and are vulnerable to being undermined. We have failed to work through the moral implications of group differences to prepare for the possibility that they will be shown to exist.”

     So, academics charge to get a petition up banning a paper saying that group differences in intelligence may exist, let’s discuss them. Really, all this shows is that academia, and the universities are a waste of time and resources. Just imagine the terrible scenario of the present pandemic from China, mutating into a special form that only knocked off liberal academics. But, hell one should not do anything about that since group differences don’t exist!