Read on Twitter
If you're going to read the Cofnas piece on "Woke Twitter Mobs" in Quillette, I suggest you use the link I'll provide to avoid giving them clicks, & that you also read the letter to the editor from Larsen et al. 2020 that provoked this latest outpouring. First, some comments:
Cofnas misrepresents the letter from Larsen et al. that you can read here, & I'm going to follow up with some pointers on how he does this: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2020.1805199
Larsen et al. provide 4 key points to argue that the publication of Cofnas's article entitled "“Research on group differences in intelligence: A defense of free inquiry” (2020) was a mistake on the part of the editors and the peer reviewers.
Their 1st point is that Cofnas presents the theory of "racial realism" as if it is a scientific theory when there is no evidence from the study of human biological variation that supports it.
Cofnas misreprsents this point by using some red herrings. He writes: "First, they proclaim that I think racial groupings are “discrete”—wrongly suggesting that my argument requires that there should be no overlap of any kind among races, or that mixed-race people don’t exist."
What Larsen et al. in fact argue is that the human species is not naturally divided into clusters of biologically discrete populations & that this fact *has consequences for how we pursue the scientific study of human genetic variation*.
Larsen et al's fundamental point is that if there are no phylogenetically distinct human populations but rather a complex mix of variation then socially-recognized racial groups like "black" & "white" are *NOT valid units for understanding genetic variation*.
Instead of addressing this point, as he should have done in his original article, his Quillette piece misleads by waffling on about variation in base pairs. But Larsen et al. made it clear that evidence of human genetic diversity is not scientifically controversial.
Cofnas takes issue with Larsen et al's reference from the statement on race from the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, which reminds us that "humans share the vast majority (99.9%) of our DNA in common"
https://physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/
https://physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/
The point of referring this is not to negate the fact that genetic variation exist but rather to draw attention to the fact that our species is relatively homogenous because "human populations are not- and never have been- biologically discrete, truly isolated, or fixed".
Cofnas ignored the substantial scientific literature on this issue in his original article (Cofnas 2020), which in their letter Larsen et al. point out is a fundamental error which should have precluded its publication.
The other points made in the letter by Larsen et al. all follow from this first point about the scientific inadequacies of "racial realism". The 2nd point is that Cofnas makes a straw man argument about the moral qualms about race/IQ research.
Larsen et al explain that the main reason that most researchers in human genetics no longer have time for the race/IQ discussion is "that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible" because race is not a genetically meaningful category.
The third point Larsen et al make is that Cofnas's assumptions about racial realism are scientifically nonsensical therefore the editorial justification for publishing his article are void. This justification was: "that controversial views should not be excluded if...
... they are backed by logical argumentation and empirical evidence". Larsen et al's letter shows why Cofnas (2020) is not, in fact, backed by "logical argumentation & empirical evidence".
The final point made in Larsen et al. is that Cofnas's article has racist ideological undertones because "racial realism is historically inseparable from scientific racism and the harmful ideologies that have fanned & funded it for centuries".
This history of scientific racism is not addressed by Cofnas apart from a few "glib remarks". Bearing all of this in mind, I'll leave you to decide whether the issue Larsen et al. are concerned with is substantive scientific & philosophic problems with Cofnas (2020) or....
