Hi Satoshi,
Excellent start to your blogging. I hope to see more. As someone who has published unpopular conclusions about race and IQ (and other matters) I'm glad to see someone out there taking a strong stand. I will watch with interest as events unfold.
All best wishes,
Phil Rushton

I wholeheartedly agree with the position of the author. However, we should also remember that in the process of seeking the truth we will likely not know when we have arrived. I would alter slightly the phrase "truth is its only arbiter" to "systematic empiricism is its only arbiter." Science typically advances by telling us what isn't true. Science's most unique feature, compared to other ways of gaining knowledge, is its ability to tell us when we are wrong. The consequence is that over time we get closer and closer to the truth without ever knowing when we have arrived. Thus, we do indeed need to allow the data to take us on whatever journey it leads, even if it offends. However, we also need to remain ever humble as new data continues to bring more precision to our understanding of the world.

the world is not the center of the universe - this was once offensive to all but now an accepted truth. the cockroach, i heard, is a better evolved species than humans in some aspects because it can survive radiation.

keep searching for the truth - politically correct / not. for only the truth can surpass the test of time.

when I was studying german some 30yrs ago I remember
my teacher saying that the german "muessen" cannot
be translated directly into english.
Hilbert's saying might be translated into
"We should know, we can know??"

It is all well and good to preach the ethos of pure science. Perhaps in your own job that is a luxury you can afford. But what about university administrators who have to decide on the size of departments, how much money they have for research and graduate programs, etc? And what about those policy makers who decide on the funding that scientists need? Sure, there is still the whole purity of science thing as an ideal, but choices have to be made about what might bring the best returns for the public. While you might consider that beneath you and want to relegate it to policy makeers, how is the laity supposed to understand this stuff without scientists getting their hands dirty and involving themselves in public education and, yes, politics?

Politics and science should not be an either/or proposition. Instead it should be about how that relationship works, where boundaries need to be drawn. Clearly the Bush administration crossed more than a few lines.