via bbb - Дискуссия 45-летней давности в журнале "Technology and Culture"
==Even that Fruchtbaum finds Eysenck's opinions repellent is no threat to intellectual freedom; but what concerns me about his letter is that he "protest[s]" (he does not, mind you, analyze or even discuss) what he peremptorily describes as Eysenck's "racist opinions," he asks that the journal be closed to such "racist propagandizing," and he informs us that Eysenck's views may not be "true." (Let us forever bear in mind that in another case where intellectual freedom was at stake Galileo held a crucial opinion that was untrue-in fact, it was dead wrong, for the tides are not caused, as Galileo insisted they were, by agitation induced by the earth's motion.)
Because Fruchtbaum eschews the process of reasoned discourse and, instead, bases his objections on political and ideological judgments, his letter is deadly dangerous to the republic of scholarship. If Fruchtbaum believes that Baker or Eysenck has somehow violated the norms of research, he has every right (indeed, almost the obligation) to criticize and expose those violations. If, as he correctly remarks, Eysenck's opinions are "questionable," that only means they are to be questioned, not suppressed because they are inconsistent with this or that political or ideological bias. (In anticipation of the pious rejoinder that condemnation of "racism" is no mere bias, I might point out that what Fruchtbaum considers "racist" Baker, Eysenck, and many others, myself included, consider honest research and scholarship.) If, further, the editor has allegedly violated the norms of scientific publication, that allegation must likewise be discussed and substantiated. (In this regard I think it would be fitting if Fruchtbaum studied the paper, Freedom and Authority in Scientific Publication, Society for Freedom in Science, Occasional Pamphlet no. 15 [Oxford: Department of Zoology, University Museum, December 1953], which John Baker read at the 1953 Hamburg conference on Wissenschaft und Freiheit.)
I doubt that Fruchtbaum wishes to see the world of learning reduced to a state where academic vigilantes prey on each other and on nonvigilant colleagues, where scientists and scholars who hold un popular views are intimidated by ideological assaults, and where editors are crucified on the cross of conformity with some privileged formulation of the "truth." It is no comfort that intellectual freedom is rarely abrogated, the Brunos, Galileos, Spinozas, and Vavilovs forming only a short list in the annals of scholarship==