The cherry picked science in Vox’s Charles Murray article
Noam
1K11

Just out of curiousity, how does the spectrum of acceptance range from 0 % to 100 % when it seems an almost factual question? The way I see it is either there is sufficient evidence for it to have a conclusive answer or there is still uncertainty in the answer, indicating that the question is still open. From what I gathered from rest of your article, it is still an open question. If this is true, researchers who take the extreme stands seem a bit dishonest or unqualified, unless the field itself has disagreement on the evidentiary requirements. Your thoughts?