Critical Thinking Feed

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/sciencesalon/mss401_Katherine_Brodsky_2024_01_10.mp3 Download MP3

As a society we are self-censoring at record rates. Say the wrong thing at the wrong moment to the wrong person and the consequences can be dire. Think that everyone should be treated equally regardless of race? You’re a racist who needs to be kicked out of the online forum that you started. Believe there are biological differences between men and women? You’re a sexist who should be fired with cause. Argue that people should be able to speak freely within the bounds of the law? You’re a fascist who should be removed from your position of authority. When the truth is no defense and nuance is seen as an attack, self-censorship is a rational choice. Yet, our silence comes with a price. When we are too fearful to speak openly and honestly, we deprive ourselves of the ability to build genuine relationships, we yield all cultural and political power to those with opposing views, and we lose our ability to challenge ideas or change minds, even our own.

In No Apologies, Katherine Brodsky argues that it’s time for principled individuals to hit the unmute button and resist the authoritarians among us who name, shame, and punish. Recognizing that speaking authentically is easier said than done, she spent two years researching and interviewing those who have been subjected to public harassment and abuse for daring to transgress the new orthodoxy or criticize a new taboo. While she found that some of these individuals navigated the outrage mob better than others, and some suffered worse personal and professional effects than others, all of the individuals with whom she spoke remain unapologetic over their choice to express themselves authentically. In sharing their stories, which span the arts, education, journalism, and science, Brodsky uncovers lessons for all of us in the silenced majority to push back against the dangerous illiberalism of the vocal minority that tolerates no dissent— and to find and free our own voices.

Katherine Brodsky is a journalist, author, essayist and commentator who has been taking an especially keen interest in emerging technologies and their impact on society. She has contributed to publications such as Variety, the Washington Post, WIRED, The Guardian, Esquire, Newsweek, Mashable, and many others. Over the years she has interviewed a diverse range of intriguing personalities including numerous Oscar, Emmy, Tony, Pulitzer, and Nobel Prize winners and nominees—including the Dalai Lama.

Shermer and Brodsky discuss:

• What it’s like growing up Jewish in the Soviet Union and Israel
• Why the Jews
• Why liberals (or progressives) no longer defend free speech
• Cancel culture: data and anecdotes
• Is Cancel Culture an imagined moral panic?
• Cancel Culture on the political Left
• Cancel Culture on the political Right
• Social media and Cancel Culture
• Free speech law vs. free speech norms
• Pluralistic Ignorance and the spiral of silence
• Solutions to cancel culture
• Identity politics
• Cancel culture, witch crazes, and virtue signaling
• Free speech, hate speech and slippery slopes
• How to stand up to cancel culture.

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/sciencesalon/mss400_Brian_Klaas_2024_01_03.mp3 Download MP3

If you could rewind your life to the very beginning and then press play, would everything turn out the same? Or could making an accidental phone call or missing an exit off the highway change not just your life, but history itself? And would you remain blind to the radically different possible world you unknowingly left behind?

In Fluke, myth-shattering social scientist Brian Klaas dives deeply into the phenomenon of random chance and the chaos it can sow, taking aim at most people’s neat and tidy storybook version of reality. The book’s argument is that we willfully ignore a bewildering truth: but for a few small changes, our lives—and our societies—could be radically different.

Offering an entirely new lens, Fluke explores how our world really works, driven by strange interactions and apparently random events. How did one couple’s vacation cause 100,000 people to die? Does our decision to hit the snooze button in the morning radically alter the trajectory of our lives? And has the evolution of humans been inevitable or are we simply the product of a series of freak accidents?

Drawing on social science, chaos theory, history, evolutionary biology, and philosophy, Klaas provides a brilliantly fresh look at why things happen—all while providing mind-bending lessons on how we can live smarter, be happier, and lead more fulfilling lives.

Brian Klaas grew up in Minnesota, earned his DPhil at Oxford, and is now a professor of global politics at University College London. He is a regular contributor for The Washington Post and The Atlantic, host of the award-winning Power Corrupts podcast, and frequent guest on national television. Klaas has conducted field research across the globe, interviewing despots, CEOs, torture victims, dissidents, cult leaders, criminals, and everyday power abusers. He has also advised major politicians and organizations including NATO, the European Union, and Amnesty International. His previous book, for which he appears on this podcast, was Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How it Changes Us. His new book is Fluke: Chance, Chaos and Why Everything We Do Matters. You can find him at BrianPKlaas.com and on X @brianklaas.

Shermer and Klaas discuss:

• contingency and necessity/convergence
• chance and randomness
• complexity and chaos theory
• Jorge Luis Borges “The Garden of Forking Paths”
• self-organized criticality
• limits of probability in a complex, ever-changing world
• frequency- vs. belief-type probability
• ceteris paribus, or “all else being equal” but things are never equal
• economic forecasting
• free will, determinism, and compatibilism
• Holy Grail of Causality
• Easy Problem of Social Research and the Hard Problem of Social Research
• Was the original theory wrong, or did the world change?
• When Clinton lost, Silver pointed to his model as a defense: 71.4 percent isn’t 100 percent! There was nearly a 30 percent chance of Clinton losing in the model, so the model wasn’t wrong—it was just something that would happen nearly a third of the time!
• Special Order 191 and the turning point of the Civil War
• Implicit in the baby Hitler thought experiment is the idea that without Hitler the Nazis wouldn’t rise to power in Germany, World War II wouldn’t happen, and the Holocaust would be avoided. It therefore assumes that Hitler was the sole, or at least the crucial, cause of those events. Many historians would take issue with that viewpoint, arguing that those cataclysms were all but inevitable. Hitler might have affected some outcomes, they’d say, but not the overall trajectory of events. The Nazis, the war, and the genocide were due to larger factors than just one man.
• weak-link problem
• complex world defined by tipping points, feedback loops, increasing returns, lock-in, emergence, and self-organized criticality
• QWERTY and path dependency, Betamax vs. VHS, cassette v. CD v. streaming.

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.

Leonardo da Vinci was a man of many talents. He was one of the few individuals to have made contributions to both the arts and science. His work extends to civil engineering, chemistry, geology, geometry, hydrodynamics, mathematics, mechanical engineering, optics, physics, pyrotechnics, warfare, and zoology.

Da Vinci was one of the best artists of his generation and many of his paintings are greatly admired today and command astronomical prices (his Salvator Mundi fetched the highest auction price ever). He was also an extraordinary illustrator, leaving thousands of manuscripts full of drawings of machines, fluid mechanics, humans, and many other topics. In addition, he was also a sculptor, architect, and more. As the type specimen of a Renaissance man, he put his mind to many different subjects, and he excelled at most of them. He was generally considered a genius by his contemporaries. In addition to all of this, he was described as a handsome and charming man, who was able to convince a whole room of the feasibility of something impossible.1 However, as it is sometimes said of promising but lazy children, some said that he would have been capable of even more accomplishments had he put his focus on them for longer and worked harder.

Revealingly, in his time, Leonardo was not considered to be at the same level as Michelangelo or even Raphael, perhaps because his notebooks were not published until much later. However, today many consider him superior to all his peers and—in a few extreme cases—some people fall into what we might call the “cult of Leonardo,” whose adherents believe that his genius was almost superhuman.

Consider a recently published article titled “Leonardo da Vinci’s Visualization of Gravity as a Form of Acceleration” by Morteza Gharib, Chris Roh, and Flavio Noca (henceforth GRN).2 In it, the authors propose that Leonardo understood gravity in a way that was not surpassed until the works of Galileo, Newton, and even Einstein. Had GRN presented their ideas in a less spectacular way, their article could have been a flawed, but mainly harmless one. Unfortunately, they chose to take the more risky path of venturing unfounded, under-researched, mind-blowing claims under the guise of solid scholarship, starting with the assertion that Leonardo saw gravity not as a force, but as an acceleration:

About 500 years ago, Leonardo da Vinci tried to uncover the mystery of gravity and its connection to acceleration through a series of ingenious experiments guided only by his imagination and masterful experimental techniques.

The shocking revelation that they put forth is that Leonardo “almost” (bit of wiggle room there) anticipated Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, in particular, the so-called “Equivalence Principle” (see Figure 1):

As with Galileo, Leonardo’s geometrical representation of the equation of motion is as insightful as Newtonian mechanics’ representations of equations of motion. […] After Newton, Albert Einstein referred to the equivalency of gravity and acceleration, when he introduced the principles of “strong equivalency” while developing his theory of relativity in the early twentieth century.

Figure 1. (Click image to enlarge) Einstein’s equivalence principle states that gravity is indistinguishable from being in an accelerated system of reference. This was famously illustrated by Einstein using a thought experiment: imagine we are in a closed room. Is there any way we can know if the down force that we feel is due to gravity? Maybe the room is in a spaceship, away from big masses and accelerating upwards with acceleration g. Einstein concluded that both situations are equivalent.

Considering gravity as an acceleration instead of a force is indeed a crucial difference between Einstein’s and Newton’s conceptions. The assertion that Leonardo could have hit upon this insight centuries before Einstein is the most preposterous claim in GRN’s article and likely what has made it so ballyhooed in the popular press. To give just a couple of examples of some of those reviews, here is one from Ars Technica:

[Leonardo attempted] to draw a link between gravity and acceleration—well before Isaac Newton came up with his laws of motion, and centuries before Albert Einstein would demonstrate the equivalence principle with his general theory of relativity.3

Here’s another one from CNET:

Before Galileo, Newton, and Einstein, it seems to be Leonardo da Vinci who started piecing together the gravity puzzle […] Rather, it’s kind of the same thing as acceleration…. [Einstein] called it the equivalence principle, and soon, this eye-opening concept would blossom into the mind-bending theory of general relativity. The rest, as they say, is history.4

Let’s summarize GRN’s argument. First, they assert that Leonardo had a good understanding of how objects fall with constant acceleration under the effect of gravity. Second, they present a thought experiment devised by Leonardo that, they claim, shows he understood that gravity is equivalent to being in an accelerated frame of reference. Finally, they present a quantitative model, purportedly based on Leonardo’s manuscripts, and they compare it against Newtonian mechanics. Let’s consider each of these points.

Acceleration of Falling Objects

To support their claim that Leonardo understood that gravity produces a constant acceleration on falling objects, GRN provide the following quote from Leonardo’s M manuscript: “a weight that descends freely in every degree of time acquires…a degree of velocity”5 (ellipsis in their article). They further tell us that “many scholars of Leonardo note that this statement indicates that Leonardo correctly understood that the velocity of a falling object is a linear function of time.”

Now consider Leonardo’s quote in full: “The free-falling body acquires a degree of displacement over each degree of time, and over each degree of displacement it acquires a degree of velocity.”6 It is not completely clear what Leonardo meant by this, since the original sentence can be translated in slightly different ways; but the simplest interpretation is that Leonardo didn’t have a full understanding of acceleration. He repeats similar ideas in various places,7 including in drawings and calculations.8 For the full quote, I have used a translation from Prof. Enzo Macagno, one of the scholars that GRN cite in support of their hypothesis. Macagno has this to say about Leonardo’s understanding of gravity relative to this quote:

what Leonardo is trying to express is that over equal intervals of time there are constant increments for both distance traversed and for velocity. If this is understood, we may study critically what Leonardo said to detect how far he went in his descriptions of motion during free fall. Even if he did not add anything new to this question, or actually detracted from it, it is still important to know his “degree” of understanding.9

However, Macagno then notes that, “In his descriptions of an accelerated motion, which could not be correct because of an intrinsic inconsistency between velocity and displacement,” an observation that is hardly in support of GRN’s claim.

Another point to consider is the concept of “free fall.” Today we apply it to objects moving exclusively under the influence of the Earth’s gravity. However, when Leonardo talks about free fall (“discienso libero”), he was probably referring to something different. Da Vinci was very conscious of the effect of air drag. In almost every case where he talks about falling objects, he mentions the effect of air and he even includes it in his simplified calculations.10 In his manuscripts, he has many things to say about the effect of air on falling objects and vice versa. To me, it is much more likely that for Leonardo, free fall meant something closer to what we now call “terminal velocity”— that is, that constant velocity which a falling object reaches due to the balance between gravity and air resistance.

Further, Leonardo mentions several times that, on sunny clear days, the air is lighter at higher altitudes, so that the air becomes thicker as the object falls. This means that he thought that, at terminal velocity, objects decelerate as they fall. This is actually true, although the effect is probably much weaker than what Leonardo implies. None of these considerations discussed at length by Da Vinci in his manuscripts are mentioned in GRN’s article.

Leonardo’s Thought Experiment

Having argued that Leonardo thought that objects fell with constant acceleration, the next step in GRN’s article is to “prove” that Leonardo had a deeper understanding, namely that he was somehow aware that gravitation was not a force, but an acceleration in a manner similar to Einstein’s equivalence principle (see Figure 1). To do this, GRN analyze a thought experiment that Leonardo described in slightly different forms in various parts of his manuscripts.

Figure 2. Leonardo’s thought experiment. The jar moves from left to right releasing beads as it moves (Manuscript M, 143r).

The experiment consists of an open “container” (a jar, a funnel, and even a cloud in his various descriptions) that moves horizontally as it allows some particles to fall (beads or hail grains). Leonardo then considers the geometry of the system, giving special consideration to the case where the jar moves horizontally at the same speed as the first released bead falls vertically. This can be seen in Figure 2 as drawn by Leonardo, where he explains that, in this particular case, the trajectory of the first bead, the one of the jar, and the line that connects all beads, form an isosceles right triangle.

Figure 3. GRN’s interpretation of the experiment. All movements are accelerated, and the beads follow parabolas.

GRN analyze this problem using a more modern Newtonian approach. As is commonly done in high school physics problems, they start by simplifying away the effect of the air—an unusual assumption in this case—given that Leonardo constantly talks about the effect of air on falling objects. They also use the perhaps more reasonable assumption that particles leave the jar at the same speed as the jar itself, not considering that they must be moving with some relative speed out of it. They show their results in a graphic similar to Figure 3.

Figure 2 is not identical to the one drawn by Leonardo, but some salient features are still there: an isosceles right triangle, abn, defined by the movement of the jar (an), the falling trajectory of the first bead (ab), and the straight line that connects all the beads (bn). GRN assert that this is what Leonardo had in mind and they use the fact that, in both cases, the line formed by the falling beads is a straight line as proof that their assumptions are correct. They contrast it against the case in which the jar moved at constant velocity while the beads fall accelerated by gravity, in which case the beads align, but in a vertical line. They never entertain the more logical possibility: that Leonardo thought that the beads fell vertically at more or less constant velocities.

Then GRN go on to explain that this system can be better understood from the point of view of the accelerated frame of reference of the moving jar, a technique not available in Leonardo’s time but in the toolbox of Newtonian mechanics. Probably, they do this to remind us of Einstein’s Equivalence Principle, wherein the connection between gravity and acceleration is deeper and where accelerated frames of reference are equivalent to gravity fields. To me, it is clear that GRN’s ulterior and ultimate motivation is to establish a connection with the General Theory of Relativity. Throughout the article they leave small hints of this; for example, they say that “Leonardo’s studies of objects in free fall demonstrate that gravitational and pseudo-acceleration fields are indistinguishable locally when their magnitudes are the same.” Here, the words “fields” and “indistinguishable locally” have nothing to do with anything Leonardo writes, but GRN say it anyway because it is a language that feels more Einsteinian. In another part of the article, they say: “in other words, he [Leonardo] switched time with space to be able to conduct this experiment,” which is a thinly veiled way of suggesting that Leonardo was wise to the space-time continuum.

Of course, Einstein’s Equivalence Principle is deeper than just comparing accelerations. That could have been done in Newtonian mechanics. The crucial point that Einstein understood is that the mass of an object subjected to a gravitational field plays no role in its dynamics. All objects are accelerated equally, even light! Leonardo never says that all objects fall at the same speed independently of their weight; quite the contrary. Leonardo gives various examples where they don’t, although he mentions air resistance as one reason. Famously, Galileo was the first person to prove that all objects fall at the same speed (not including the effect of air), and there is no reason to believe that Leonardo knew that before Galileo.

Figure 4. Leonardo’s Manuscript M 217r (left), and my translation (right). The image above has been mirrored from the original for ease of understanding. Leonardo wrote from right to left, using his left hand, to prevent smudging the ink as he wrote.

I have translated the page where Leonardo presents the experiment of the hail cloud (see Figure 4). My translation is quite literal, except that I have simplified the third paragraph which, to me, was a little bit reiterative and confusing. It is clear that Leonardo thought that hail grains fell mostly vertically, without any appreciable horizontal velocity, as indicated by the vertical lines that connect every grain with the location at the moment it was released. Leonardo thought that the effect of the air would make objects quickly stop any horizontal movement (see Figure 5). The fact that he also thought that this experiment could be performed substantiates the assumption that he was considering objects falling at constant velocity. Should we believe Leonardo was thinking that clouds could be seen accelerating to absurdly great speeds or that hail grains were not affected by air resistance?

Figure 5. Objects thrown at different angles. The image has been mirrored for ease of understanding (Codex Arundel 92v).

Simply by inspecting Figure 4 and the other pages that Leonardo devoted to this problem, it is clear that he was interested in a simpler geometrical problem: two things that start moving from the same point at the same constant speed but in perpendicular directions will have trajectories that define the two legs of an isosceles right triangle. And the trivial corollary is that if the velocities are different, the triangle will not be isosceles. Da Vinci draws examples of each of these cases and explains how this can be used to estimate the speed of the clouds.

If Leonardo really thought that the particles were following the beautiful parabolic trajectories shown in Figure 3, why didn’t he draw them that way rather than drawing, as he did, vertical lines of no clear meaning? GRN never comment on this obvious weakness in their claim.

Leonardo’s Model?

The next section in GRN’s article is truly strange. In what seems like a misguided attempt to perform a quantitative validation of Leonardo’s ideas on gravity, they make extraordinary assumptions and take huge leaps of faith. They interpret the line in Figure 4 labeled “equation of movement” (it can also be translated as “balanced movement”) as meaning that this figure encodes the actual physical equation of movement. After observing that Leonardo seemed to have bisected the axes, they decide that “presumably, the distance between consecutive bisecting locations represents the distance the object traveled during a fixed time step,” although Leonardo says nothing of the sort. He very clearly says that these bisections represent possible speeds of the cloud, relative to the speed of the hail. According to the supplementary materials provided by GRN, it seems that they came up with “Leonardo’s model” for gravity acceleration by looking at the figures, which may explain their misunderstanding.

GRN claim that “Leonardo’s model” is given by the formula: z(t) ∝ 2(t-1)n, where z is the vertical location of the object, t is time, n is the number of bisections, and ∝ means “proportional to.” It is a strange mixture of a discrete description in terms of bisections (n) and a continuous one in time (t). They recognize that this model is incorrect, but after a few additional assumptions which I will not discuss here, they realize that it is not as bad as it might seem initially. In fact, they say that in certain circumstances it is quite good. They write: “Leonardo’s gravitational constant is 0.9774 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.8535, 1.101), which is close to the nondimensional gravity of 1. These two observations suggest that Leonardo’s model of natural motion, while imperfect, was an accurate representation of his observation of falling objects.”

I don’t think this section requires detailed commentary. GRN start with their wrong interpretation of Leonardo’s manuscripts, invent a model based on what they think a figure means, make some unsupported assumptions, and end up with something that has nothing to do with what Leonardo might have had in mind. One could imagine that they wanted to end their article with some hard numerical results, and they distorted Leonardo’s meaning until it yielded something they could use.

This article appeared in Skeptic magazine 28.3
Buy print edition
Buy digital edition
Subscribe to print edition
Subscribe to digital edition
Download our app

There is, however, an additional point I would like to mention. The model they attribute to Leonardo is invalid for times close to zero (ironically, the only ones for which air drag is insignificant). The plot of z against t that they show in their article and in the supplementary materials does not begin at the origin. The object starts falling only after it is already eight percent of its way down!

* * *

As we have seen, there is no basis to believe that Leonardo da Vinci, genius though he undoubtedly was, had a knowledge of gravity ahead of his time, much less at the level of Newton or Einstein. Every year, thousands of articles are written with the only intention of entertaining casual readers. Their flaws are obvious to most knowledgeable readers. However, this article was published in a peer-reviewed journal by a well-known academic institution. The authors claim to have studied the topic scientifically and their conclusions are not easy to dismiss. One must dig into Leonardo’s large corpus of manuscripts to be able to properly analyze their claims, and few are willing or have the language skills to do so. I have tried my best to examine GRN’s claims carefully. After looking at all the evidence, I remain unconvinced.

Leonardo da Vinci was one of the greatest minds in history. He is unrivaled in having made significant contributions to both science and the arts. There is simply no need for GRN’s hyperbole that Leonardo was a genius who foresaw relativity theory centuries ahead of his time. Their claim is not supported by any fair reading of the original manuscripts. Rather, their paper is a generator of disinformation that has helped to decrease the already too low signal-to-noise ratio in public conversations about science.

About the Author

José María González Ondina is an Associate Researcher at the University of Florida. He received his PhD from Cornell University. He spent most of his career as an ocean modeler, studying underwater sound propagation and sediment transport at the Plymouth Ocean Forecasting Centre. He also spent a decade at the Ocean & Coastal Research Group (University of Cantabria, Spain) developing numerical models for coast engineering.

References

1. Giorgio, V. (1550) Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects.
2. https://rb.gy/7sfix
3. https://rb.gy/8lhni
4. https://rb.gy/wvnhr
5. Manuscript M, folio 45r, folio 43r.
6. I am using the translation of Enzo Macagno from Leonardian Fluid Mechanics in the Manuscript M, page 18.
7. For example here: “Hence, in each doubling of the quantity of time the body doubles the length of fall and the velocity of its motion.” from Manuscript M, folio 44v.
8. Manuscript M, folio 45r.
9. Enzo Macagno, Leonardian Fluid Mechanics in the Manuscript M, page 18.
10. Manuscript M, folio 44v.

The carcasses of headless goats are floating in the Chattahoochee River; too many for a prosaic explanation.

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/sciencesalon/mss399_Chris_Anderson_2024_01_17.mp3 Download MP3

As head of TED, Chris Anderson has had a ringside view of the world’s boldest thinkers sharing their most uplifting ideas. Inspired by them, he believes that it’s within our grasp to turn outrage back into optimism. It all comes down to reimagining one of the most fundamental human virtues: generosity. What if generosity could become infectious generosity? Consider:

• how a London barber began offering haircuts to people experiencing homelessness—and catalyzed a movement
• how two anonymous donors gave $10,000 each to two hundred strangers and discovered that most recipients wanted to “pay it forward” with their own generous acts
• how TED itself transformed from a niche annual summit into a global beacon of ideas by giving away talks online, allowing millions access to free learning.

In telling these inspiring stories, Anderson has given us “the first page-turner ever written about human generosity” (Elizabeth Dunn). More important, he offers a playbook for how to embark on our own generous acts—whether gifts of money, time, talent, connection, or kindness—and to prime them, thanks to the Internet, to have self-replicating, even world-changing, impact.

Chris Anderson has been the curator of TED since 2001. His TED mantra—“ideas worth spreading”—continues to blossom on an international scale. He lives in New York City and London but was born in a remote village in Pakistan and spent his early years in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, where his parents worked as medical missionaries. After boarding school in Bath, England, he went on to Oxford University, graduating in 1978 with a degree in philosophy, politics and economics. Chris then trained as a journalist, working in newspapers and radio, and founded Future Publishing that focused on specialist computer publications but eventually expanded into other areas such as cycling, music, video games, technology and design. He then built Imagine Media, publisher of Business 2.0 magazine and creator of the popular video game users website IGN, publishing some 150 magazines and websites and employed 2,000 people. This success allowed Chris’s nonprofit organization to acquire the TED Conference, then an annual meeting of luminaries in the fields of Technology, Entertainment and Design held in Monterey, California. He expanded the conference’s remit to cover all topics, and now has TED Fellows, the TED Prize, TEDx events, and the TED-Ed program offering free educational videos and tools to students and teachers. Astonishingly, TED talks have been translated into 100 languages and garner over 1 billion views a year. His new book is Infectious Generosity: The Ultimate Idea Worth Spreading.

Shermer and Anderson discuss:

• how his life turned out (genes, environment, luck)
• what makes TED successful while other platforms failed or stalled
• TED talks go public for free vs. paying customers
• power laws and giving: do 10% donate 90%?
• Amanda Parker gave away her music and asked people to pay: survival bias—how many people have tried this and failed?
• blogs, podcast, Substack … saturation markets
• changing business landscape of charging vs. giving away
• What makes things infectious?
• What is generosity? Idea vs. character trait—virtue ethics
• altruism and reciprocal altruism, reputation and self-reputation
• religion and morality: do we need an “eye in the sky” to be good?
• Can people be good without God?
• philanthropy: 2700 billionaires have more wealth than 120 poorest countries combined
• giving & philanthropy seems like a rich-person’s game. How can average people participate?
• incentivizing giving as a selfish act: why “pay it forward”?
• public vs. private solutions to social problems
• How can one person make a difference?
• The Mystery Experiment
• Ndugu Effect
• donor fatigue
• Giving What We Can.

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.

The practice of discussing educational testing in the same sentence with the term “war” is not necessarily new or original.1 What may be new to readers, however, is to characterize current debates involving educational testing as involving a war against: (1) accurate perceptions about the way things really are (reality), and (2) sound judgment in practical matters (common sense).

Education, Testing, and the Real World

Education is compulsory in American society, and no one escapes testing—whether standardized or unstandardized—in their schooling experience, even before entering school. As newborns, infants are given Apgar scores to assess their overall health.2 When a child is ready to enter preschool, s/he may be assessed with a standardized test to determine school readiness in understanding basic concepts, cognitive and language development, and early academic achievement.

As children matriculate through the primary school years, they are required to pay attention to teacher lessons; resist natural impulses to fidget, talk out of turn, or bother one’s neighbor; complete worksheets quietly at one’s desk; complete and return homework assignments; and complete national or state-mandated standardized academic achievement tests that measure “what students know and can do.”3 In some cities, students must complete tests to determine eligibility for entrance into elite or specialty high schools,4 and students in some states must successfully complete tests in order to graduate high school.5 Well before students are scheduled to graduate, they have, until recently, been required to complete standardized college admissions tests in order for their applications to be competitive for colleges of their choice.6

Enter Basic Common Sense

When enough years are spent surrounded by age peers in schools, everyone—regardless of background, race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status—intuitively understands that comparatively, some peers are intellectually smarter, other peers are roughly the same, and others are intellectually slower. These differences are most determinative of one’s overall level of academic achievement from kindergarten to high school graduation and beyond. Some pupils have a natural proclivity to be voracious readers and progress successfully through their academic programs much more quickly than others. They are able to grasp and understand difficult and abstract academic material more quickly, have a wide range of intellectual interests and hobbies, and are much more likely to be selected for admission to programs for the gifted and talented. These are generally the A and B students and tend to enroll in advanced foreign languages, trigonometry, pre-calculus, chemistry, and other advanced placement (AP) classes in high school.

Then there are students who struggle with school—particularly as the curriculum becomes more conceptual, complex, and abstract. These students have often been identified as “slow learners,” and school generally becomes a profoundly aversive experience. In higher grades, many tend to select vocational courses or may sometimes drop out of school before graduation, and these are generally known as the C and D students in their classes. The majority of pupils, however, fall somewhere in between those two extremes.7

When interacting with curricula, brighter students can generalize learning more easily to new classes of similar information never before encountered, while slower students have more difficulty in remembering what has been previously learned. Using a simple illustration from the early elementary school years (and barring specific reading disabilities), teachers can teach brighter students the phonetic rules for sounding out words such as “groan” and “moan.” Later, when these students encounter similar words that they have not seen before, such as “Joan” or “loan,” they can more easily apply what they have previously learned and correctly sound out these new words as well as understand their meaning. In contrast, when slower students encounter new words that have the same phonetic spelling and pronunciation as previously learned words, they find it more difficult to spontaneously apply what they have previously learned to sound out these new words, and consequently, word identification mastery takes them more time.8

Similarly, slower students will be easily confused over the rules that govern the correct pronunciation of words with the same “ei” letter combination but different pronunciations, e.g., neighbor, heist, and weird. In contrast, brighter students will internalize these nuances more quickly, readily identify these words correctly, and so move on to master more complex words. These differences in word identification skills also influence reading comprehension.

To be sure, slower students will eventually learn how to pronounce correctly similar words governed by different phonetic rules, but teaching such students requires instruction where broader learning objectives are broken down into smaller hierarchical steps, teaching is much more intentionally explicit, and greater amounts of time are devoted to learning and practice.9 If you learned academic subjects more quickly than other students, you probably have found other areas (e.g., art, music, athletics, home and auto repair, cooking, or just learning to get along with others) that took you longer than others, including those who took longer than you on the purely academic subjects.

Regardless of grade level brighter students can more quickly internalize and consolidate the required mental schemata for representing material that is learned, and then use this knowledge as a foundation upon which to build new schemata.10 Slower students have more difficulty consolidating information to be learned, or at least it requires more time to consolidate prerequisite information compared to brighter age peers. When slower peers attempt to mentally consolidate new information built on a shaky foundation, new information is poorly understood.

Brighter students can generally follow along at the pace of regular instruction, while slower students cannot, and eventually fall further and further behind as they get older. The older pupils are, the more they begin to self-select into secondary school tracks that are more suitable to their intellectual capabilities and interests, resulting in extremely wide individual differences in academic performance at higher grades. By the time students reach 11th and 12th grades, for example, brighter students are able to solve complex mathematical equations while slower students still struggle with mastering elementary fractions. As a result, the brightest students in high school tend to enroll in advanced placement courses such as foreign languages, pre-calculus, chemistry, and physics, while slower students gravitate to vocational courses.

Anti-testing hostility has found a powerful, organized voice whose prime directive is to diminish the influence—if not the outright banishing—of standardized testing.

Psychologists refer to this basic phenomenon as “individual differences in mental ability and learning potential,”11 and no one knows this better than teachers. In the elementary grades, for example, teachers regularly come into contact with wide individual differences in performance on standardized achievement tests, despite all students being taught the same material under the same teacher. That’s why it is a bit unfair to hold teachers solely responsible for the achievement test performance of their students, since students can perform poorly on achievement tests despite exemplary teaching, and can also perform well on achievement tests despite mediocre teaching.

Enter Painful Realities

There are no racial, ethnic, language, or socioeconomic subpopulation groups, anywhere on any continent on the globe, that display equal means in their respective distributions of mental test scores.12 These individual differences in mental test scores, when consolidated and averaged, will inevitably result in statistically significant average differences in academic achievement across subpopulation groups. Of course, there is also significant overlap among these groups. Although the full range of test scores and performance—from severe intellectual disability to mental genius—can be found within all racial and ethnic subpopulation groups,13 it is nevertheless true that these abilities are not equally distributed across such groups. Group differences have been observed since the beginning of standardized testing. In fact, they begin as early as three years of age, remain consistent over decades, and have proven stubbornly resistant to intervention.14 The largest gaps between subpopulation groups in both mental test scores and the achievement outcomes that result from such scores will be most noticeable at the extremes of their respective distributions.15 Because this is such a sensitive subject it should be noted that these are average differences between groups and tell us nothing about the ability of any single member of any group.

Differences in academic achievement are not equally distributed across socioeconomic groups or across communities and school districts, as these have more or less different concentrations of low to high performing students. Studies consistently show that even massive allocation of funds to school districts, without other interventions, has no significant effect on raising academic achievement.16 School systems are keenly aware of this, which is why comparisons of achievement test scores across school districts are careful to use race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status as a covariate in comparing scores. That is, schools having similar concentrations of students from particular racial/ethnic groups and socioeconomic backgrounds are compared to other schools with similar backgrounds. This way, when schools having concentrations of students from similar backgrounds show significantly different levels of academic achievement, higher performing schools can be studied intensively to determine the key factors that are responsible for their relative success.17

For purposes of this analysis, the term education establishment refers to the constellation of education school professors, teacher education textbooks and journals, teacher certification training programs, and professional teaching associations (e.g., the American Educational Research Association, or AERA; the National Education Association, or NEA) that dominate thought and opinion within the education and teaching professions. Within that group, there are four arguments held by anti-testing critics that are given prominence that far outweighs their scientifically demonstrated validity.

Claims That Testing Harms Students

Eighteenth Century social philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s notion of children born in freedom and innocence, but eventually corrupted and enslaved by society,18 is the basic assumption that undergirds hostility toward standardized testing among many educators. According to critics, standardized testing places undue emotional stress on students due to test scores’ relation to important outcomes. They argue that testing fails to measure accurately the capabilities of students with different learning styles and penalizes pupils who are not good test takers.

Another common argument is that standardized testing fails to account for language deficiencies, empty stomachs, learning disabilities, difficult home lives, or cultural differences.19 The tests are said not to measure student progress or improve student performance, but rather penalize students’ critical thinking and creativity due to the multiple-choice testing format (or its opposite), namely, that tests confer an unfair advantage to students who perform well on multiple-choice tests by learning test-taking strategies without having deep knowledge of the subject matter.

Anti-testing hostility has found a powerful, organized voice in numerous movements whose prime directive is to diminish the influence—if not the outright banishing—of standardized testing in pre- and post-higher education. The opt-out movement, for example, began in New York in 2014 among mostly White, highly-educated, and politically liberal parents who were united in their refusal to have their children sit for standardized testing in schools.20 They claimed that judging teacher performance by students’ test scores is unfair and that testing unduly narrows the school curricula by creating a “teaching-to-the-test” instructional ethos. Some stated they were in outright opposition to the implementation of Common Core State Standards.21

It would not be an overstatement to say that certain criticisms have their origin in various neo-Marxist ideologies. There, standardized tests are portrayed as instruments of oppression designed by capitalistic test-construction companies to crush students’ dreams of a better life and trap them in the social classes in which they were born. One such critic writes:

Rather than providing for an objective and fair means of social mobility, the tests were a tracking mechanism limiting the odds of improving on one’s family’s economic and social position in America…. The SAT aptitude test in particular was designed from the beginning to facilitate social Darwinism, selecting for White Anglo-Saxon males; Jim Crow segregation, eugenics, and protecting the Ivy League’s racial stock provided the legal and cultural context in which the SAT was born.22

These criticisms are feeble, shallow, and above all, dishonest. Rebuttals to these fallacies, patiently documented and dissected by recognized testing scholars, are readily available to anyone with a fair and open mind.23

Claims of Cultural Bias in Tests

The critically acclaimed 1991 film Boyz N the Hood told the tale of three Black youths growing up in a South Central Los Angeles ghetto, and the differences in their eventual life outcomes as a function of having (or not having) a strong father figure. One of the boys has a strict but caring father figure (named Jason “Furious” Styles), while the other two do not. In numerous spots throughout the movie, Mr. Styles imparts pithy pearls of wisdom to the boys, intended to guide them throughout life. In one such sequence, he opines on the SAT requirement for college:

Most of those tests are culturally biased to begin with. The only part that is universal is the Math.24

Wrong. Although popularly believed, the claim that contemporary standardized mental testing is culturally biased is patently false, as revealed in hundreds of empirical studies.25 When critics accuse standardized tests of cultural bias, they typically mean that a test includes words, concepts, or ideas that are perceived to be more familiar to White middle-class examinees compared to other groups, or that a test’s standardization samples fail to include sufficient representation of non-White, lower socioeconomic status (SES) persons.26

Both of these conditions are alleged to foster an unfair disadvantage to lower SES non-White examinees, purporting to cause them to have lower average scores relative to more advantaged White test takers. While some critics may not be familiar with the content of tests or the racial/ethnic makeup of standardization samples, they nevertheless believe that standardized tests are biased simply because the average scores achieved by different subpopulation groups are not equal. Such a definition of test bias is widely rejected by contemporary testing experts.27

The cold reality, however, is that test companies, like all other companies that must be profitable in order to stay in business, routinely and carefully examine their test items for any evidence of statistical bias in the production phase, before any updated test revisions are published. Items that show actual evidence of statistical bias (i.e., items that statistically perform differently for test takers of different racial/ethnic groups) are discarded, and the results of statistical tests for biased test items are typically published in test manuals for open review by the general public.28

Crying Racism

Whenever attempts to tar and feather tests with charges of cultural bias fail, the next step is to simply smear them with the charge of racism. In today’s heated political climate few things are more effective in attracting panicked attention than labeling persons, organizations, or products as “racist.” In the 1990s, test critics began to point out that the term “aptitude” in the (then-called) Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT), could be perceived as measuring something innate that is impervious to effort or instruction.29 This, coupled with the fact that these tests reflect the significant subpopulation group differences in mean scores discussed above, prompted the College Board to change the middle word of the SAT from “aptitude” to the more bland descriptor “assessment” in 1993.30 That euphemism, however, did little to quell the ire of critics, who continued to accuse standardized college testing of being racist.31

In today’s heated political climate few things are more effective in attracting panicked attention than labeling persons, organizations, or products as “racist.”

To be fair, it is relatively easy to locate offensive quotes by 19th and early 20th-century testing supporters who freely ascribed the adjectives “inferior” and “superior” to racial groups on the basis of significant mean differences in IQ scores.32 It comes as little surprise, therefore, when Ibram X. Kendi, founder and director of the Center for Antiracist Research, declares that:

Standardized tests have become the most effective racist weapon ever devised to objectively degrade Black and Brown minds and legally exclude their bodies from prestigious schools.33

Kendi and many others never doubt that contemporary testing must be racist, based on the false belief that such testing was birthed out of a history of racism.34 There is no doubt that these types of claims are very effective in poisoning contemporary public discourse, but such invective does not hold up under critical examination or hard evidence.

First, many early researchers were extremely cautious about, and resistant to, interpreting group differences in text performance as ironclad indicators of any innate inferiority/ superiority of groups. While racist attitudes were certainly more prevalent a century ago compared to today, many early American IQ test researchers were keenly aware of racial discrimination and unequal social circumstances of racial groups during the times in which they wrote, and so urged their peers to avoid hasty and intemperate generalizations from performance on tests until environmental disadvantages could be properly ruled out.35

Second, not a few early 20th-century researchers intentionally showcased the exceptional IQ test performance of high-scoring non-White (particularly African-American) students, who achieved scores several standard deviations above the general mean.36 Their writings disprove the assertion that there is something intentionally nefarious deeply embedded within mental tests that unfairly suppresses the intellectual capabilities of examinees who are not White and/or middle class.

Third, one study using a large and representative dataset of school-aged students in California, analyzed the sources that account for IQ test score variance (using Analysis of Variance, a long-standing, well-established, and widely-used statistical method), and demonstrated that the largest sources of IQ test score variability are within and between families that in many cases share the same racial group and social class.37 If two members of this same dataset are selected at random (regardless of race, ethnicity, social class, or family) and the difference in their IQ scores are calculated and averaged and the procedure repeated an infinite number of times, the average difference between randomly selected pairs of IQ scores is 17 points.

Given that the mean of modern IQ tests is 100 and its standard deviation is 15, this average 17-point difference between such randomly chosen pairs exceeds the average score differences between Black and White students in the dataset (i.e., 12 points). Simply stated, the average IQ point difference between siblings in the same family exceeds the average test score difference between African Americans and White Americans. Taken together, these findings demonstrate the oft-repeated claims that IQ and other mental tests are inherently flawed and discriminate unfairly along racial lines, are simply false. This won’t convince Ibram X. Kendi, however, since his definition of racism is any group difference of any kind anywhere, thereby rendering the concept unfalsifiable.

Lowering Standards

Whenever two or more subpopulation groups achieve unequal means in their test score distributions, any set cutoff score that a college or university uses to determine acceptance or rejection for admission will display unequal percentages across groups as to who is selected or rejected. That is a statistical reality. For admissions committees that champion Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) mandates, standards must be lowered for members of lower-scoring groups in a manner that camouflages what is actually being done.

Researchers have long acknowledged that obtaining data on college admissions decisions is an uphill battle, as colleges strive to prevent access to the criteria on which acceptance decisions are made. When such information is obtained, the results confirm what many have always suspected.

That is to say, Black and Latino applicants are admitted with test qualifications that are as much as one standard deviation or more below the average test scores of White and Asian applicants,38 and this practice has predictable consequences. To illustrate, many Black and Hispanic students find themselves on academic probation or switch majors (from the major into which they were initially admitted) to enter disciplines that are less demanding.39 Many of those so admitted will simply drop out and fail to graduate, creating “artificial failures” that would have been successful if properly matched to institutions that enroll students with comparable qualifications.40

This observation was solidly reinforced in Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor’s 2012 book Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It. In it, the authors examined and compared enrollment, graduation rates, and doctorate/STEM graduate degrees of Black and Hispanic students in the state of California in the eras before and after Proposition 209 was passed in that state. Proposition 209 (Prop 209, also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative, or CCRI), was a ballot proposition approved in 1996, which prohibited state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity in public employment, contracting, and education.

When comparing the pre-Prop 209 to the post-Prop 209 eras, the number of Black students receiving bachelor degrees from University of California (UC) schools, the number of UC Black and Hispanic freshmen who went on to graduate in four years (as well as graduate with STEM degrees), and the number of graduates with GPAs of 3.5 or higher all significantly rose. This hard data was used to support the general thesis that when students are matched (through objective standardized test scores) to institutions where all students are admitted under the same standards (and standards are not artificially lowered to satisfy diversity goals), minority students benefit significantly.

These practices are so pervasive, that Black students who meet the same college admissions requirements as their peers often write of their frustration and resentment at being unfairly judged by other students as having been admitted solely because of their race and under lower standards.41 In one particularly heartbreaking account, a successful Black journalist wrote of his frustrations taking two years out of his professional life to teach journalism to Black students, admitted under lowered academic standards, at a small, historically Black college. He writes of his reluctant efforts to repeatedly lower basic academic expectations in order to accommodate a critical mass of students whose attitudes, values, achievement motivation, academic preparation and qualifications, and intellectual capabilities demonstrated that they had no business being at an institution of higher learning.42

One strategy for justifying lowering standards is for college admissions committees to claim that their admission standards are “holistic.”43 That is, criteria for admission presumably must take into account a wide range of factors that provide a more “three-dimensional picture of the whole person,” as opposed to the more “narrow” consideration of standardized test scores. Yet critics charge that the deep subjectivity of such practices represents little more than academic flimflam.44

The oft-repeated claims that IQ and other mental tests are inherently flawed and discriminate unfairly along racial lines, are simply false.

Recently, testing companies have come to serve as enablers of lowered college admissions standards. For example, the College Board spent two years (2017–2019) creating an “adversity index,” a 100-point scale that provides a rough measure of the degree of adversity versus privilege in the life of a prospective applicant. In theory, adversity index scores could be used to balance lower standardized test scores in an effort to justify lower admissions standards. Ultimately, however, these efforts of testing companies to placate their critics once again proved futile.45

Another strategy is to claim that empirical research supports the benefits of having diverse academic settings compared to those not as diverse. For example, a DEI advocate cited research support for claims that students who enroll in more diverse classrooms earn higher GPAs, more diverse college discussion groups generate “more novel and complex analyses,” and that greater exposure to diversity in college settings increases civic attitudes and engagement.46

However, studies of such an important topic as the benefits of diversity in college admissions require at minimum systematic replication as well as hundreds of studies by independent researchers (conducted at a wide variety of institutions) if they are to yield results that can be subjected to appropriate meta-analyses.

One study, however, is notable for its elegance, clarity, and simplicity. In 2002, researchers specifically evaluated the claim that increased racial diversity in college enrollments enriches students’ educational experience and improves relations between students from different cultural groups.47 They argued that prior self-report data claimed to demonstrate support for this notion were misleading, as they suffered from biased item wording, methodological flaws, and the tendency for responses to reflect social desirability effects.

To correct for these flaws, the researchers analyzed self-report data from a random sample of more than 4,000 American college students, faculty, and administrators who were asked to simply evaluate various aspects of their educational experience and campus environment, but without any direct references to racial/ethnic diversity. They then correlated their data with the percentage of Black student enrollment in predominantly White student bodies. They found that, contrary to what diversity advocates would predict, no consistent positive correlation was found between increased diversity and respondents’ assessments of educational satisfaction.

Delete Standards Altogether

Eventually, what was previously unthinkable, has now become unavoidable: objective standards in and of themselves are seen as an impediment to the goals of achieving diversity, equity, and inclusion. Hence, testing necessary for demonstrating mastery of taught subject matter must itself be abolished.

This article appeared in Skeptic magazine 28.3
Buy print edition
Buy digital edition
Subscribe to print edition
Subscribe to digital edition
Download our app

In one example, the Oregon state legislature eliminated (for two years, until the state can re-evaluate its graduation policies) the long-standing requirement that students successfully pass a high school exit exam in order to demonstrate proficiency in reading, mathematics, and writing. This was done in response to criticisms that the testing requirement was inequitable because higher percentages of Black and Hispanic students failed the test.48

Various anti-testing writers and organizations applaud the news that more and more institutions of higher education no longer require standardized test scores as a condition for selection,49 under the pretense that “the social and academic costs of continuing to rely on…tests outweigh any possible benefits.”50

Where are we headed?

At the time of this writing, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (where race is used as one of many factors in student admissions) violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees equal protection for all U.S. citizens.51 In a videotaped reaction to the decision, President Biden stated that the decision “effectively ends affirmative action in college admissions,”52 a sentiment echoed by many who support the continued and fair race-neutral use of standardized tests. Nevertheless, many commentators have also suggested ways in which admissions committees can circumvent the decision by no longer requiring standardized testing, or by changing the manner in which applicants write their college essays to signal their racial group membership.53

There is simply no way to produce a mental test that effectively measures the abilities and skills needed to predict success in educational programs but at the same time satisfies the political goals of racially proportional representation as demanded by DEI advocates.54 Given this reality, the war involving standardized testing has by no means ended, but rather is just beginning.

About the Author

Craig Frisby is Associate Professor Emeritus in School Psychology from the University of Missouri, Columbia. He has served as an Associate Editor for School Psychology Review, the official journal of the National Association of School Psychologists, and Associate Editor for Psychological Assessment, a journal published by the American Psychological Association. He currently serves as Associate Editor for the Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences. He is the author of Meeting the Psychoeducational Needs of Minority Students: Data-based Guidelines for School Psychologists and Other School Personnel and co-editor of the recently published Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology: Nature, Scope and Solutions. Watch him on C-SPAN discussing education reforms to benefit the African American community

References

1. https://rb.gy/px4qc; https://rb.gy/ee7vq
2. https://rb.gy/b0xfx
3. https://rb.gy/2247j
4. https://rb.gy/8lwgq
5. https://rb.gy/uh0da
6. https://rb.gy/0vkuf
7. Frisby, C.L. (2013). General Cognitive Ability, Learning, and Instruction. In C.L. Frisby, Meeting the Psychoeducational Needs of Minority Students, 201–266. Wiley.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Jensen, A.R. (1993). Psychometric G and Achievement. In B.R. Gifford (Ed.), Policy Perspectives on Educational Testing, 117–227. National Commission on Testing and Public Policy. Springer.
11. https://rb.gy/row4i; Jensen, A.R. (1987). Individual Differences in Mental Ability. In J.A. Glover & R.R. Ronning (Eds.), A History of Educational Psychology, 61–88. Plenum.
12. Lynn, R. & Vanhanen, T. (2006). IQ and Global Inequality. Washington Summit Publishers; Rushton, J.P. & Jensen, A.R. (2005). Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(2), 235–294.
13. Gottfredson, L.A. (1997). Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories, History, and Bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13–23.
14. Rushton, J.P. & Jensen, A.R. (2005). Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(2), 235–294; Gottfredson, L. (2005). Implications of Cognitive Differences for Schooling Within Diverse Societies. In C.L. Frisby & C.R. Reynolds (Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology, 517–554. Wiley.; https://rb.gy/24n08
15. Ibid.
16. https://rb.gy/pvhup; Greene, J.P. (2005). Education Myths: What Special Interest Groups Want You to Believe About Our Schools—and Why It Isn’t So. Rowman & Littlefield.; https://rb.gy/65e0w
17. https://rb.gy/jpry7; Whitman, D. (2008). Sweating the Small Stuff: Inner–City Schools and the New Paternalism. Thomas B. Fordham Institute Press.
18. Rousseau, J. (2019). The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right. (Trans. by G. Cole) Compass Circle.
19. https://rb.gy/bdg1d
20. https://rb.gy/l8bls
21. https://rb.gy/r8xlx
22. Soares, J.A. (Ed.) (2020). The Scandal of Standardized Tests: Why We Need to Drop the SAT and ACT (p. ix). Teachers College Press.
23. Phelps, R.P. (2003). Kill the Messenger. Transaction; Phelps, R.P. (2005). Defending Standardized Testing. Erlbaum; Phelps, R.P. (2009). Educational Achievement Testing: Critiques and Rebuttals. In R.P. Phelps (Ed.), Correcting Fallacies About Educational and Psychological Testing, 89–146. American Psychological Association; https://rb.gy/8b1mv
24. https://rb.gy/r449n
25. Camara, W.J. (2009). College Admissions Testing: Myths and Realities in an Age of Admissions Hype. In R.P. Phelps (Ed.), Correcting Fallacies About Educational and Psychological Testing, 147–180. American Psychological Association.; Reynolds, C.R., Altmann, R.A., & Allen, D.N. (2021). Chapter 15: The Problem of Bias in Psychological Assessment. In C.R. Reynolds, R.A. Altmann & D.N. Allen, Mastering Modern Psychological Testing: Theory and Methods (2nd Ed.), 573–614. Springer.; Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in Mental Testing. Free Press.
26. Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in Mental Testing. Free Press.
27. Warne, R.T., Yoon, M. & Price, C.J. (2014). Exploring the Various Interpretations of ‘Test Bias’. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(4), 570–582.
28. Ibid.
29. https://rb.gy/btc99
30. https://rb.gy/4ixp7
31. https://rb.gy/hvz82
32. Galton, F. (1870). Hereditary genius: An Inquiry Into Its Laws and Consequences. Appleton.; Brigham, C. (1923). A Study of American Intelligence. Princeton University Press.; Gould, S.J. (1996). The Mismeasure of Man (revised and expanded). W.W. Norton & Company.
33. https://rb.gy/foaup
34. https://rb.gy/nk8fu; https://rb.gy/3ec9n; https://rb.gy/3gnwb
35. Bond, H.M. (1924). What the Army ‘Intelligence’ Tests Really Measured. Opportunity, 2, 197–198.; Canady, H.G. (1942). The American Caste System and the Question of Negro Intelligence. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 33(3), 161–172.; Canady, H.G., Buxton, C. & Gilliland, A.R. (1942). A Scale for the Measurement of the Social Environment of Negro Youth. The Journal of Negro Education, 11(1), 4–13.; Klineberg, O. (1934). Cultural Factors in Intelligence Test Performance. The Journal of Negro Education, 3(3), 478–483.; Long, H.H. (1925). On Mental Tests and Racial Psychology—a Critique. Opportunity, 134–138.
36. Bond, H.M. (1927). Some Exceptional Negro Children. The Crisis, 34(8), 257–259, 278, 280.; Bousfield, M.B. (1932). The Intelligence and School Achievement of Negro Children. The Journal of Negro Education, 1(3/4), 388–395.; Jenkins, M.D. (1939). Psychological Study of Negro Children of Superior Intelligence. The Journal of Negro Education, 5(2), 175–190.
37. Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in Mental Testing (p. 43). Free Press.; Jensen, A.R. (1998). The G Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (p. 357). Praeger.
38. Murray, C. (2021). Facing Reality: Two Truths About Race in America, 67–71. Encounter Books.; Riley, J.L. (2014). Chapter 6: Affirmative Discrimination. In J.L. Riley, Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed, 141–168. Encounter Books.
39. https://rb.gy/9zbnl
40. Riley, J. (2014). Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed. Encounter Books.; Sander, R.H. & Taylor, S. (2012). Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It. Basic Books
41. Carter, S.L. (1992). Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby. Basic Books.; https://rb.gy/18cbl
42. https://rb.gy/h1olw; https://rb.gy/4e8sn
43. https://rb.gy/xkcte
44. https://rb.gy/xlr6p
45. Soares, J.A. (2020). The “Landscape” or “Dashboard Adversity Index” Distraction. In J.A. Soares (Ed.), The Scandal of Standardized Tests: Why We Need to Drop the SAT and ACT, 76–94. Teachers College Press.
46. https://rb.gy/b884w
47. Rothman, S., Lipset, S.M., & Nevitte, N. (2002). Does Enrollment Diversity Improve University Education? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15(1), 8–26.
48. https://rb.gy/sw9u8; https://rb.gy/xqvc9
49. https://rb.gy/oa9o4; https://rb.gy/md53l; https://rb.gy/1qw9z
50. Schaeffer, R.A. (2020). The SAT/ACT Optional Admissions Growth Surge: More Colleges Conclude “Test Scores Do Not Equal Merit”. In In J.A. Soares (Ed.), The Scandal of Standardized Tests: Why We Need to Drop the SAT and ACT, 97–113. Teachers College Press.
51. https://rb.gy/za7v3
52. https://rb.gy/z22hf
53. https://rb.gy/r4k0d
54. Gottfredson, L. (2000). Skills Gaps, Not Tests, Make Racial Proportionality Impossible. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(1), 129–143.

A Benedictine monk is said to have built a device allowing him to see and hear historical events.

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/sciencesalon/mss398_Paul_Halpern_2024_01_02.mp3 Download MP3

Our books, our movies—our imaginations—are obsessed with extra dimensions, alternate timelines, and the sense that all we see might not be all there is. In short, we can’t stop thinking about the multiverse. As it turns out, physicists are similarly captivated.

In The Allure of the Multiverse, physicist Paul Halpern tells the epic story of how science became besotted with the multiverse, and the controversies that ensued. The questions that brought scientists to this point are big and deep: Is reality such that anything can happen, must happen? How does quantum mechanics “choose” the outcomes of its apparently random processes? And why is the universe habitable? Each question quickly leads to the multiverse. Drawing on centuries of disputation and deep vision, from luminaries like Nietzsche, Einstein, and the creators of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Halpern reveals the multiplicity of multiverses that scientists have imagined to make sense of our reality. Whether we live in one of many different possible universes, or simply the only one there is, might never be certain. But Halpern shows one thing for sure: how stimulating it can be to try to find out.

Dr. Paul Halpern is the author of 18 popular science books, exploring the subjects of space, time, higher dimensions, dark energy, dark matter, exoplanets, particle physics, and cosmology. The recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship, a Fulbright Scholarship, and an Athenaeum Literary Award, he has contributed to Nature, Physics Today, Aeon, NOVA’s “The Nature of Reality” physics blog, and Forbes “Starts with a Bang!” He has appeared on numerous radio and television shows including “Future Quest,” “Science Friday,” “Radio Times,” “Coast to Coast AM,” “The Simpsons 20th Anniversary Special,” and C-SPAN’s “BookTV.” He appeared previously on the show for his book Synchronicity: The Epic Quest to Understand the Quantum Nature of Cause and Effect. His new book, The Allure of the Multiverse, describes the controversial history of higher dimensional and parallel universe schemes in science and culture. More information can be found at: allureofthemultiverse.com

Shermer and Halpern discuss:

• universe and multiverse meaning
• Is the multiverse science, metaphysics, or faith?
• theists claim the “multiverse” is just handwaving around the God answer
• types of multiverses
• many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics?
• inflationary cosmology and eternal inflation
• Darwinian cosmology
• infinity and eternity
• multiple dimensions and the multiverse
• string theory and the multiverse
• cyclical universes and multiverses (the Big Bounce)
• Anthropic Principle (weak, strong, participatory)
• time travel and the multiverse
• sliding doors, contingency, and the multiverse.

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.