Emil O W Kirkegaard

I don't like literature based expressions because these are sensitive to social desirability bias, whereas anonymous surveys are not so much. I think one should follow the approach used in climate science to gauge expert opinion on climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change …

I don't know what you mean, interpretations of heritability. This is not like quantum mechanics interpretations. Heritability only has one meaning that everybody uses (G/P var). There are various disagrees on what one can infer from heritability wrt. malleability.

Obviously, researchers think heritability is meaningful, otherwise they wouldn't bother with all the studies. The philosophers are out of touch with the science. Note that philosophers are very left-wing so we can expect them to dislike heritability for political reasons alone.

I havne't read that book (yet). Obviously, one cannot just ignore arguments because their origins are Marxists, but if literally every major opponent of something is Marxist (Gould, Lewontin, Kamin, their other commie friends), then I'm very suspicious.

And these people have directly stated their opposition comes on ideological grounds ('science for the people' etc.), and this is supported by reports from their colleagues. One cannot attack hereditarians for being political extremists. IQ researchers are center-left on average.