ns of Rushton’s theories may seem to be doing more harm than good. To demonstrate that blacks are less intelligent and, perhaps, to allege that this is genetically given, with only environmental modifications, Rushton refers to his own biased review of brain size studies. Yet, it has been shown that the theories favoring hereditarian over environmentalists explanations tend to be based on poor methodology. In summary, although Rushton’s writings andteachings instill the vision of Blacks as a smaller-brained, less intelligent species, his views, in Cernovsky’s mind (as well as mine), are based on neither bonafide scientific evidence or contemporary scientific methodology. His belief of the evolutionary inferiority of Blacks seems to be supported by no “real” strong empirical evidence. Cenovsky conclusively states, “Further empirical data in this field is necessary: Authoritarian statements ‘about the reality of racial differences,’ based on conveniently selected trends in the data, do not qualify as a scientific contribution (Slife, 185).” I do feel that Cernovsky’s article lacked a clear style as well as evidence and reasoning.He seemed to contest Rushton’s composition the entire time and never really appeared to present any evidence of his own. There were hardly any statistics backing his claims, making his argument, in my eyes, much weaker than Rushton’s. In addition, since his article was mostly rebuttal to Rushton’s, Cernovsky lacked style and organization within his own. This also cheapened the credentials of both him and his argument, to me. Although, in Cernovsky’s defense, I do praise him for his realization that much moreevidence is needed and that nit-picking of facts to prove one’s point is highly unethical. From reading the two articles above I could not yet take a stand on this issue. I felt that both authors were very bias, highly em...
