On medicine, culture, and children's basic interests: a reply to three critics

Margaret Mohrmann, Paul Lauritzen, and Sumner Twiss raise questions about my account of basic interests, liberal theory, and the challenges of multiculturalism as developed in Children, Ethics, and Modern Medicine. Their questions point to foundational issues regarding the justification and limitation of parental authority to make decisions on behalf of children in medical and other contexts. One of the central questions in that regard is whether adults' decisions deserve to be respected, especially when they seem contrary to a child's or adolescent's basic interests. Questions about respect, in turn, focus attention on other's decisions about what seems good for families and children, decisions that may be paternalistic or utilitarian. Such decisions are further complicated by a child's or adolescent's budding autonomy and need for respect and recognition. Pediatric bioethics grounded in an account of a child's basic interests produces a theory of negative and positive rights for assessing adults' actions in relation to children, especially (but not only) when adults demand respect in their expressions of care.     

Race, brain size, and intelligence: a reply to Cernovsky

Cernovsky's 1990 critique of my work on the relation between brain size and IQ inadequately presents my position. I did not address the issue of sex differences in brain size nor did I conclude that "women are less intelligent than men" (p. 337). In the autopsy study cited by Cernovsky, it was concluded that, when body size is controlled, the male-female difference in brain size is removed but the black-white difference in brain size remains. Cernovsky also ignores much additional data, including that Mongoloid populations have larger and heavier brains than Caucasoids. Here, I review evidence on the relation between (a) brain size and race and (b) brain size and intelligence. Data are also tabulated for personality, speed of maturation, and sexuality, on all of which the Caucasoid average consistently falls between those of Mongoloids and Negroids. This ordering may be explained by a gene-based evolutionary theory of r/K reproductive strategies in which Mongoloids are more K-selected than Caucasoids and Caucasoids more than Negroids.     

Kant on freedom: A reply to my critics

The first two sections of this paper are devoted respectively to the criticisms of my views raised by Stephen Engstrom and Andrews Reath at a symposium on Kant's Theory of Freedom held in Washington D.C. on 28 December 1992 under the auspices of the North American Kant Society. The third section contains my response to the remarks of Marcia Baron at a second symposium in Chicago on 24 April 1993 at the APA Western Division meetings. The fourth section deals with some general criticisms of my treatment of Kant's theory of freedom and its connection with transcendental idealism that have been raised by Karl Ameriks, who was also a participant in the second symposium, in an earlier piece published in Inquiry and by Paul Guyer in a review. The paper as a whole is thus an attempt to reformulate and clarify some of the central claims of my book in light of the initial critical reaction.     

Race, brain size, and intelligence: another reply to Cernovsky

Five sets of observations require explanation. Firstly, within both black and white populations there is a small positive correlation between IQ and brain size whether or not there is control for body size. Secondly, racial differences in average brain size occur such that Mongoloids greater than Caucasoids greater than Negroids especially with control for body size. Thirdly, mammals with larger brains relative to their bodies perform better on learning tasks than mammals with smaller brains relative to their bodies. Fourthly, average racial differences on measures of cognitive performance parallel the differences in average brain size. Fifthly, average racial differences on numerous other traits parallel the differences in intelligence and brain size. It is incumbent on scientists to explain these facts.     

The contributions of philosophy: reply to critics of the world philosophy made

Philosophical Studies -     

From method to critique: a reply to Vonk and van Vliet

Vonk & van Vliet (1998) criticise the methods used in the study by Wagner, Elejabarrieta & Lahnsteiner (1995). They conclude that methodological flaws render some findings of the study invalid. It is shown that those flaws are in fact not present and that the remaining part of the conceptual critique is at least debatable. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Concerns about Global Justice: a response to critics

Abstract

A review essay of Gillian Brock Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account (Oxford University Press, 2009)     

Gesture, speech, and computational stages: a reply to McNeill

McNeill (1985) claimed that speech and its accompanying gestures "share a common computational stage" that is located early in the speech production process. This position depends on two crucial arguments that we believe are unsound: first, that gestures "are synchronized with linguistic units in speech" and, second, that gestures "have semantic and pragmatic functions that parallel those of speech." Careful analysis of the relevant data indicated that although the processes underlying gestural production are globally autonomous, they are linked to speech production at more than just one computational stage. An account is offered that explicates these links.