Lies, Damned Lies and Stephen Jay Gould

Lies, Damned Lies and Stephen Jay Gould

The late Stephen Jay Gould - jewish palaeontologist, public intellectual and Marxist – has lately received a lot of fresh attention in the science community as one of his specific claims from his odious book ‘The Mismeasure of Man’ (1) has recently been re-examined and found to be utterly spurious. (2) This seems to have surprised quite a few scientists, but for those of us in the ivory towers who are race realists and hereditarians it comes as little surprise.

That it comes as little surprise might raise an eyebrow for many, but Stephen Jay Gould’s ‘The Mismeasure of Man’ has long been ripped apart by hereditarians and proven to be a work of conscious deception on Gould’s part. Indeed, Pearson has shown (3) that Gould’s involvement in Marxist causes - such as Students for a Democratic Society [hereafter SDS] (along with his celebrated jewish confrere Richard Lewontin who still regularly writes for Trotskyite rags such as the ‘New Left Review’) - has meant that Gould’s conscious deception in relation to the inheritance of intelligence and behavioural traits in humans can fortunately be documented.

Naturally it is normally very difficult to convincingly document an individual - and particularly an academic - actively distorting their work for a preconceived cause unless they write about it and it can be demonstrated that they have allowed personal conviction to form their conclusion before their review of the evidence has actually begun. However, Gould was - like Lewontin - prolific in his support of Marxist causes and his involvement with far-left politics is not even a subject for contention. Pearson also informs us of the fact that Gould and Lewontin were both also involved in the SDS campaign of intimidation against evolutionary scientists and socio-biologists who disagreed with their ‘science for the people’ pseudo-Lamarckian (or neo-Lysenkoist) approach to human biological and behavioural studies.

This has allowed the identification of Gould as a politicised scientist in the same sense that Bullert has shown Gould’s fellow-travelling jewish predecessor Franz Boas to have been. (4) Ironically Gould was caught out by the exactly the same thing that has happened to Boas years after their respective deaths: someone went back and checked their skull data. Boas was discovered several years ago - by one of his own followers no less - to have simply lied about his data and that lying can only have had a political motive as Boas openly used that lie to attack what has been called ‘racist approaches to anthropology’. Now Gould has been found out to have been doing almost exactly the same thing in his work and perhaps even worse than Boas in that unlike Boas Gould claimed to be objective.

That said Gould’s partisans have been quick to try and save the reputation of their jewish master and have suggested (5) that Gould ‘proves his point’ by being wrong. This is easily pin pricked per the discussion above precisely because their argument asserts two obvious fallacies:

A) What Gould did was unconscious manipulation.

B) Nobody believes in Morton’s ‘cranial capacity equals intelligence’ now anyway.

In the first instance Gould cannot be said to have just made a mistake or unconsciously manipulated the data, because if you read the paper as written by Lewis et al it is very clear that Gould suppressed and modified Morton’s own data. Now if this was a case of unconscious bias, you’d expect something more akin to just not mentioning the sourcing Morton used or interpreting his data incorrectly, but Gould does far more than that according to Lewis et al: he simply makes up Morton’s data to fit his case.

That isn’t ‘unconscious bias’ dear boys: it is ‘conscious manipulation’. There is one hell of a difference and notably if you claim that Gould was just being ‘unconsciously biased’ then why I wonder don’t you mention his long-term involvement in anti-hereditarian politics in explicit support of his Marxist beliefs?

You can’t have Stephen Jay Gould without his openly professed beliefs: stop trying to have your cake and eat it at the same time!

As for the second instance: sorry chaps, but people do still argue this in peer-reviewed scientific journals (6) although we can understand why you claim they don’t and simply use the epithet ‘racist’ to describe anyone who opposes your egalitarian nut jobbery.

However, lets perform a little thought experiment here to show how silly (and unscientific) such a position is to take: if one presumes that say Albert Einstein faked his mathematical proofs for the Special Theory of Relativity and this was discovered by several scientists who then published a critique in a scientific journal. Would this therefore mean that we should not go back and re-evaluate all our thought based on Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity? Of course, it does, because if as a scientist one discovers that the basis for one’s work, e.g., Einstein’s theory, was not conceived via the scientific method but for other reasons, then it suggests that the entire theory needs to be re-tested and re-evaluated as a whole in order to make sure that all the inferences, deductions and experiments based on it are scientifically correct.

I find it utterly nonsensical that professedly honest scientists would try to run away from something so obvious, but then I suppose I can agree in a sense Gould was right. Scientists do have ‘unconscious bias’ and that bias is shown not in what Gould did, but what his supporters are now doing to try and limit the damage to their jewish master’s reputation!


(1) Stephen Jay Gould, 1981, ‘The Mismeasure of Man’, 1st Edition, W. W. Norton: New York

(2) ; Arthur Jensen, Hans Eysenck, Bernard Davies, John Phillipe Rushton among other have long argued that this was the case, but were ignored largely because of Gould’s popularity.

(3) Roger Pearson, 1997, ‘Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe’, 2nd Edition, Scott-Townsend: Washington D.C.

(4) Gary Bullert, 2009, ‘Franz Boas as Citizen-Scientist: Gramscian-Marxist Influence on American Anthropology’, The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2, p. 209