Talk:The Bell Curve

Popular reception?

What seems to be missing from the discussion is how well did The Bell Curve sell? A discussion of how many copies were sold, how many reprints were made, and critics’ assessment of the reason’s behind the book’s commercial success or lack of it are certainly worthwhile. Luokehao, 13 December 2020, 08:09 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.166.49 (talk)

This book synopsis relies on a single source.

Of course the synopsis of a book always relies on one source. Why warn readers about that ? It is silly. 142.189.246.116 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

What assumptions does the book actually make?

According to Gould, the book authors assume that intelligence must be:

1. reducible to a single number
2. capable of rank ordering people in a linear order
3. primarily genetically based
4. essentially immutable

But author Charles Murray said he made no such assumptions

Should we leave it at that? Or can we quote the passages which Gould claims indicate such assumptions?

And on the other hand, are there any passages in the book which refute Gould's claim? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not our role to do original analysis of the text, nor to second-guess reviews by reliable sources. We simply report the verifiable facts, giving competing views due weight. Generalrelative (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

"a view that is now considered discredited by mainstream science" citations are poor

The first citation is a guardian opinion article, it's argumentative and raises valid points, however I do not think it can be considered "mainstream science" as the article is not science, it puts forward a point of view that may have some scientific basis by one person.

The second citation is a vox article which is again an opinion article in a similar style to the first, it's a criticism of a podcast between Sam Harris and Charles Murray, it cannot be considered "mainstream science".

The third citation is an actual published article in a journal, however, it cannot be considered a scientific refutation of the view. It's an observation of how white supremacists use similar articles to the ones that Charles Murray has made to justify their bigotry. It is also a low impact article from a low impact journal, the article itself only has 43 citations, it cannot be considered "mainstream science".

I do not believe that the claim is sufficiently cited. 106.68.123.65 (talk) 13:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:MOSLEAD, the lead does not need to have extensive citations if there are plenty of citations in the main body, as is the case here. Starting with the "Reception" section, I count 35 sources for criticism of the book by mainstream scholars and scientists, several of whom point out how far the book is from the methods and conclusions of mainstream science: references 12-16, 21-25, 29-30, 33-45, 47-54, and 57-58. NightHeron (talk) 13:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"how far the book is from the methods and conclusions of mainstream science" It is a pseudoscience book, written by two cranks. Is it that much of a surprise that its methods do not work? Dimadick (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I get that it's a standard, but I don't think that number of references is valid. The claim that it's "considered discredited by mainstream science" should have more to back it up than two opinion articles and an article that literally has nothing to do with mainstream science, with a low impact factor, that literally doesn't make it mainstream science.

If you wanted to back up the claim , you should post a strong systematic review with a good amount of citations (probably 500+). I think that would sufficiently justify calling it discredited by mainstream science. 106.68.123.65 (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure about the wiki guidelines but "mainstream science" and then attaching Opinion pieces is not sufficient evidence, the claim would make a lot more sense even if there was an unofficial survey of intelligence or IQ researchers. Averagepcuser (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to check these sources. As soon as I read that sentence I was suspicious. Referring to science as "mainstream" demonstrates a misunderstanding of the scientific process and is an obvious political tactic. Science isn't controversial. It can't be. It's provable or not.

I knew what this article was going to say before I opened it. Wikipedia has been completely compromised for years. It's amazing they cited a couple of op eds, and a paper on a different topic as the clear evidence the book has been debunked.

I think it's also relevant that the citations were all published between 2018-2022. Meaning it took scientists 25 years to debunk a book and its data that was immediately controversial and remains one of the most despised theories ever put forth.

74.99.70.93 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources being recent doesn't mean it took "25 years to debunk", since science is an ever-changing field. It's also naive to act like science "can't be controversial", the scientific process involves debate and discussion that can (and often has, like with The Bell Curve) erupted into controversy. Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Science can be controversial it's an human endeavor, the purpose of science is to gather as much evidence such no single scientist can ignore it. (although a non scientist will ignore it anyways check; *radical* version of climate denial which denies the temperature data)

Although I agree the use of "mainstream" with opinion pieces citations is misguided like take ,the mention of the article guideline they are using to justify this misuse of citations.

From WP:MOSLEAD

"Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."

Like this is vague, where did the consensus form? This is an extemely "controversial" subject so it might require more citations not some weak OPINION piece. (I would like to inform I am just a bystander to this political issue who just got triggered by poor epistemic standards if I am violating wiki guidelines forgive me) Averagepcuser (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The view was never considered credible to begin with so there wouldn't be many sources, if two non-scientists published a book that eating rusty nails was good for you we wouldn't need to link to an article explaining their view was "now considered discredited". The Bell Curve was only ever credible to the casual readers, which is why it's a book and not a paper they published. Galdrack (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Did I miss something...

Or does this source article [1] not even mention The Bell Curve? Goodtablemanners (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It does mention co-author Murray once, but in any case the article is cited to demonstrate that the view of "genetic racial IQ differences" is discredited by mainstream science. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Even so, wouldn't it make more sense to cite an article that specifically mentions the material in The Bell Curve? Goodtablemanners (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of the sources

Specifically the 'The Guardian' article by Gavin Evans presents a polemical argument against race science and the claims made in The Bell Curve, but it does not go into specific studies or meta-analyses that directly refute the genetic basis for racial differences in IQ. As it is right now, the part that these sources are attached to adds nothing of value to the page but opens up for a case of it being unscientific, biased, opinionated, and propagandistic. --Vjilk (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Overwrought characterizations of this article's "mainstream science" sentence aside, there is a recent source that is a better fit to support this claim (it was already used to support the same claim over at Charles Murray (political scientist)) so I've substituted it in for the Guardian piece. Generalrelative (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Generalrelative (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

References