s about racial differences and lacks quality in his empirical evidence. He blatantly compares Rushton’s evidence and theories to those of the Nazi’s in Germany…“The history of science teaches us that many ambitious racists attempted tomanufacture scientific evidence for their beliefs. Sooner or later, their charlatan style methodology (e.g. the use of skull circumference measurement by Nazi ‘scientists’ during WWII) and logical inconsistencies resulted in their rejection by the scientific community (Slife, 184).” Cernovsky considers the research that links brain size and intelligence to be faulty. He contends that although Rushton implied that Blacks are consistently found to have smaller brains than Whites, some studies have actually shown opposite results. Rushton’s opponents have found that Blacks seems to be superior to Whites in brain weight, have excess number of neurons compared to Caucasoids andhave been found to have cranial capacities that are favorably comparable. Cernovsky protests that Rushton repeatedly misrepresented findings of empirical evidence by Beals et. al, trying to imply that the racial inferiority of the blacks was strongly correlated with cranial size, whereas Beals showed that cranial size varies with climatic zones, not race. Can we say confirmation bias Mr. Rushton? Cernovsky also argues that Rushton’sresearch has been censored not because of political incorrectness, but because of its poor scholarship. While Rushton’s research did find that the brain and cranial size of one’s head are correlated with intelligence, he failed to mention how small of a correlation he actually was able to prove. This misconstruing of empirical evidence drove Cernovsky to call Rushton’s writings “pseudoscientific” and state that he “perpetuates lay public’smisconceptions and promotes racism (Slife, 185).” The social implicatio...
