Argumentum Ad Hominem in the Science of Race

Argumentation and Advocacy

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 14-28

  Jackson, John P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

ad hominem; controversy; pragmatic theory of fallacy; rhetoric of science; scientific racism

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951483812     PISSN: 10511431     EISSN: 25768476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00028533.2006.11821659     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Barkan, E., (1992). The retreat of scientific racism: Changing concepts of race in Britain and the United States between the world wars. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
2. Batt, S., (2003). Keeping company in controversy: Education reform, spheres of argument, and ethical criticism. Argumentation and Advocacy, 40, 85–104.
3. Biesecker, B., (1989). Recalculating the relation of the public and technical spheres. In B. E., Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 66–70). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
4. Boyd, J., (2002). Public and technical interdependence: Regulatory controversy, out-law discourse, and the messy case of Olestra. Argumentation and Advocacy, 39, 91–110.
5. Bravero, A. F., (2000). “13 angry men”: Dale Bumper's ad hominem impeachment trial of President Clinton. Argumentation and Advocacy, 36, 218–227.
6. Brown, J., (1992). The definition of a profession: The authority of metaphor in the history of intelligence testing, 1890–1930. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7. Ceccarelli, L., (2001). Rhetorical criticism and the rhetoric of science. Western Journal of Communication, 65, 314–330.
8. Ceccarelli, L., (2005). “Let us (not) theorize the spaces of contention.” Argumentation and Advocacy, 42, 30–33.
9. Chomsky, N., (1976). The fallacy of Richard Hermstein's IQ. In N.J., Block & G., Dworkin (Eds.), The IQ controversy (pp. 285–298). New York: Pantheon.
10. Clarke, L. E., (2000). Liars and ghosts in the House of Congress: Frank's ad hominem arguments in the case against DOMA. Argumentation and Advocacy, 36, 196–210.
11. Cravens, H., (1985). History of the social sciences. Osiris, 1, 183–207.
12. Crenshaw, C., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., (1999). Rhetoric, racist ideology, and intellectual leadership. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 2, 275–302.
13. Cronshaw, S. F., Hamilton, L. K., Onyura, B. R., & Winston, A. S., (2006). Case for non-biased intelligence testing against black Africans has not been made: A comment on Rushton, Skuy, and Bons (2004). International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 278–287.
14. Danziger, K., (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15. Dikötter, F., (1998). Race culture: Recent perspectives on the history of eugenics. American Historical Review, 103, 467–478.
16. Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Fabj, V., & Sobnosky, M.J., (1995). AIDS activism and the rejuvenation of the public sphere. Argumentation and Advocacy, 31, 163–184.
18. Fischer, C. S., (1996). Inequality by design: Cracking the Bell Curve myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19. Fish, J. M., (Ed.). (2002). Race and intelligence: Separating science from myth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Galison, P. L., (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21. Geiser, M. P., (2000). John Randolph of Roanoke and the argumentum ad hominem. Argumentation and Advocacy, 36, 210–217.
22. Goodnight, G. T., (1982). Public, private, and technical spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 214–227.
23. Goodnight, G. T., (1991). Controversy. In D. W., Parson (Ed.), Argument in controversy: Proceedings of the seventh SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 1–13). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
24. Goodnight, G. T., (2005). Science and technology controversy: A rationale for inquiry. Argumentation and Advocacy, 42, 26–29.
25. Gross, A. G., (2005). Scientific and technical controversy: Three frameworks for analysis. Argumentation and Advocacy, 42, 43–47.
26. Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M., (2002). Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. New York: Oxford University Press.
27. Habermas, J., (1984). The theory of communicative action (T., McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1981)
28. Hacking, I., (1995). The looping effects of human kinds. In D., Sperber, D., Premack, & A.J., Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (pp. 351–394). New York: Oxford University Press.
29. Hacking, I., (1996). The disunities of the sciences. In P. L., Galison & D. J., Stump (Eds.), The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power (pp. 37–74). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
30. Hacking, I., (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31. Hannaford, I., (1996). Race: The history of an idea in the West. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
32. Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C., (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press.
33. Hogan, M.J., (1991). Between the public and technical spheres of argument: The “televisual” rhetoric of the nuclear freeze campaign. In D. W., Parson (Ed.), Argument in controversy: Proceedings of the seventh SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 100–106). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
34. Jackson, J. P., Jr. (2004). The scientific defense of racial segregation, 1954–1964. American Psychologist, 59, 530–537.
35. Jackson, J. P., Jr. (2005). Science for segregation: Race, law, and the case against Brown v. Board of Education. New York: New York University Press.
36. Jackson, J. P., Jr., & Weidman, N. M., (2004). Race, racism, and science: Social impact and interaction. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio.
37. Jensen, A. R., (1972). Genetics and education. New York: Harper and Row.
38. Jensen, A. R., (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.
39. Johnstone, H. W., Jr. (1952). Philosophy and argumentum ad hominem. Journal of Philosophy, 49, 489–498.
40. Kenny, M. G., (2002). Toward a racial abyss: Eugenics, Wickliffe Draper, and the origins of the Pioneer Fund. Journal of History of the Behavioral Sciences, 38, 259–283.
41. Keränen, L., (2005). Mapping misconduct: Demarcating legitimate science from “fraud” in the B-06 lumpectomy controversy. Argumentation and Advocacy, 42, 94–113.
42. Laudan, L., (1977). Progress and its problems: Toward a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
43. Lombardo, P. A., (2002). “The American Breed”: Nazi eugenics and the origins of the Pioneer Fund. Albany Law Review, 65, 743–830.
44. Lombardo, P. A., (2003). Pioneer's big lie. Albany Law Review, 66, 1125–1144.
45. Lynn, R., (2001a). Eugenics: A reassessment. Westport, CT: Praeger.
46. Lynn, R., (2001b). The science of human diversity: A history of the Pioneer Fund. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
47. Metealf, R., (2005). Rethinking the ad hominem: A case study of Chomsky. Argumentation, 19, 29–52.
48. Mitchell, G. R., (2003). Did Habermas cede nature to the positivists? Philosophy and Rhetoric, 36, 1–21.
49. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Boykin, W. A., Brody, N., Ceci, S., (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77–101.
50. Olson, K. M., & Goodnight, G. T., (1994). Entanglements of consumption, cruelty, privacy, and fashion: The social controversy over fur. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80, 249–276.
51. Paul, D. B., (1995). Controlling human heredity: 1865 to the present. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities University Press International.
52. Pearson, R., (1996). Heredity and humanity: Race, eugenics and modem science. Washington, DC: Scott-Townsend.
53. Peters, T. N., (1991). What happened at Baltimore: Technical argument and public values concerning human sexuality at the 1991 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). In D. W., Parson (Ed.), Argument in controversy: Proceedings of the seventh SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 270–276). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
54. Richards, G., (1997). “Race,” racism, and psychology. London: Routledge.
55. Richards, G., (2004). “It's an American thing”: The “race” and intelligence controversy from a British perspective. In A. S., Winston (Ed.), Defining difference: Race and racism in the history of psychology (pp. 137–169). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
56. Rosenthal, S.J., (1995). The Pioneer Fund: Financier of fascist research. American Behavioral Scientist, 39, 44–62.
57. Rowland, R. C., 1986). The relationship between the public and the technical spheres of argument: A case study of the Challenger Seven disaster. Central States Speech Journal, 37, 136–146.
58. Rushton, J. P., (2002). The Pioneer Fund and the scientific study of human differences. Albany Law Review, 66, 207–262.
59. Schiappa, E., (2003). Defining reality. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
60. Sedgwick, J., (1995). Inside the Pioneer Fund. In R., Jacoby & N., Glauber (Eds.), The Bell Curve debate: History, documents, opinions (pp. 144–161). New York: Times Books.
61. Shuey, A. M., The testing of Negro intelligence. Lynchburg, VA: J. P. Bell.
62. Smedley, A., (1998). Race in North America: Origin and evolution of a worldview (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
63. Steele, C. M., (2004). Kenneth B. Clark's context and mine: Toward a context-based theory of social identity threat. In G., Philogené (Ed.), Racial identity in context: The legacy of Kenneth B. Clark (pp. 61–76). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
64. Stefancic, J., & Delgado, K, (1996). No mercy: How conservative think tanks and foundations changed America's social agenda. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
65. Toulmin, S. E., (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
66. Tucker, W. H., (1999). Correcting the corrections. Psychological Reports, 84, 457–458.
67. Tucker, W. H., (2002). The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
68. Tucker, W. H., (2003). A closer look at the Pioneer Fund: Response to Rushton. Albany Law Review, 66, 1145–1160.
69. Wallinger, M. J., (1989). Regulatory rhetoric: Argument in the nexus of public and technical spheres. In B. E., Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 71–80). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
70. Walton, D. N., (1995). A pragmatic theory of fallacy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
71. Walton, D. N., (1998). Ad hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
72. Walton, D. N., (2000a). Case study of the use of a circumstantial ad hominem in political argumentation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 33, 101–115.
73. Walton, D. N., (2000b). Use of “ad hominem“argument in political discourse: The Battalino case from the impeachment trial of President Clinton. Argumentation and Advocacy, 36, 179–186.
74. Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W., (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.
75. Weyher, H. F., (1998). Contributions to the history of psychology: Intelligence, behavior genetics, and the Pioneer Fund. Psychological Reports, 82, 1347–1374.
76. Weyher, H. F., (1999). The Pioneer Fund, the behavioral sciences, and the media's false stories. Intelligence, 26, 319–336.
77. Winston, A. S., (1998). Science in the service of the far right: Henry E. Garrett, the IAAEE, and the Liberty Lobby. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 179–210.
78. Zulick, M. D., & Laffoon, E. A., (1991). Enclaved publics as inventional resources: An essay in generative rhetoric. In D. W., Parson (Ed.), Argument in controversy: Proceedings of the seventh SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 249–255). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.