No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 February 2009
1 Philosophy, 48, No. 183 (01 1973), 63–69.Google Scholar
2 ‘The Flew-Jensen Uproar’, Philosophy, 48, No. 186 (10 1973), pp. 386–390.Google Scholar
3 ‘Flew and the Revival of Social Darwinism’, Philosophy, 49, No. 187 (01 1974). pp. 97–101.Google Scholar
4 Richardson, R. and Spears, D. (eds.) Race, Culture and Intelligence (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972).Google Scholar
5 Schleifer, , op. cit., p. 386: italics and sneer quotes his.Google Scholar
6 Flew, , op. cit., p. 63.Google Scholar
7 Ibid., pp. 64–65. Compare also my review article in The Spectator for 30 09 1972.Google Scholar
8 Schleifer, , op. cit., p. 386.Google Scholar
9 Ibid., p. 387.
10 I am here reminded of the late, and by me unlamented, J. V. Stalin. For it was his practice to describe such disfavoured creatures as liberals, not as liberals, but as ‘liberals’. Presumably the quotes were inserted to express his own contemptuous distaste, rather than to suggest the ineptness of the description.
11 Flew, , op. cit., p. 66.Google Scholar
12 Ibid., p. 66.
13 Schleifer, , op. cit., p. 387Google Scholar, italics his. In this paragraph he complains that ‘Flew conveniently chooses just one of Jensen's conclusions… “that genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average Negro-white intelligence difference”. What Flew has left out is that Jensen also argues that genetic determinants of conceptual ability are differentially distributed as a function of social class.’ I certainly will not complain simply because Schleifer is ‘angry and at times insulting’. But I do complain that he has not tried to explain why that not very startling further contention is thought to have been relevant to my original purpose, and hence why he suggests that I was disingenuous not to have mentioned it.
14 Schleifer, , op. cit., p. 388.Google Scholar
15 Ibid., p. 388 note.
16 Ladimeji, , op. cit., p. 97.Google Scholar
17 Ibid., p. 97.
18 Ibid., p. 101.
19 Ibid., p. 97: my actual concern was ‘about any threat to free inquiry; as well as about defections from proper academic standards’.
20 Ibid., p. 99.
21 Ibid., p. 99.
22 Ibid., p. 100.
23 Richardson, R. and Spears, D. (eds.), op. cit., p. 176.Google Scholar