| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/20/2007 03:14:40 AM · #1 |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 06:45:12 AM · #2 |
Might want to read deeper.
"I can understand much of this reaction. For if I said what I was quoted as saying, then I can only admit that I am bewildered by it. To those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. This is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."
However, Dr Watson goes on to suggest that genes may account for many behavioural traits, including intelligence and even criminality. "The thought that some people are innately wicked disturbs me," he says. "But science is not here to make us feel good."
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 08:44:46 AM · #3 |
| Do we want scientists to have to be Politically Correct now too? |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 08:59:58 AM · #4 |
this topic belongs in Rant
but given that generalized nutrition in Africa & north America are different (& has been for a while!)
and that intelligence tests are invented by & generalized for 'western' culture
and the speaker/researcher is a near 80 (born & raised in a different view point)
i believe it the concept is a pile of crap |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 10:19:26 AM · #5 |
My father is actually a fan of this guy's work - it astounds me.
I like this quote from the article linked:
He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 10:33:36 AM · #6 |
It astounds you ??? Watson/Crick are surely "fan" worthy. Do you have ANY idea of what they shared the Nobel Prize for????
Your father is correct in his admiration. All anyone seems to admire today are drunken rich whores that are plastered on the news each night.
Brittney, Paris, Lohan....give me a freaking scientist any day !!!!
Originally posted by idnic:
My father is actually a fan of this guy's work - it astounds me.
I like this quote from the article linked:
He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great." |
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 10:36:47 AM · #7 |
My god I hope not !
You watch...this man's recent comments UNDO all he has done in the past.
Soon you will see Jessie Jackson and Sharpton trying to get the Nobel reversed !!!
Originally posted by photodude:
Do we want scientists to have to be Politically Correct now too? |
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 10:51:29 AM · #8 |
| Should it surprise anyone at all that there may be small geographical variances in performance on tests of intelligence? It certainly should not. The fact is, some differences almost certainly exist. What people don't understand is that the normal distribution of intelligence scores is *so* broad that these differences are swamped by natural variation. It's also *very* likely that observed differences are affected by test bias & environmental factors (nutrition, educational opportunity, the list is endless) so any conclusions must be taken with a grain of salt. The whole matter is a tempest in a teapot. |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 11:21:45 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
It astounds you ??? Watson/Crick are surely "fan" worthy. Do you have ANY idea of what they shared the Nobel Prize for????
Your father is correct in his admiration. All anyone seems to admire today are drunken rich whores that are plastered on the news each night.
Brittney, Paris, Lohan....give me a freaking scientist any day !!!!
Originally posted by idnic:
My father is actually a fan of this guy's work - it astounds me.
I like this quote from the article linked:
He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great." |
|
Good for you. I like it when a conservative puts all his cards out on the table. |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 12:29:18 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Do we want scientists to have to be Politically Correct now too? |
Just watch what happens if one of them doesn't accept every single current belief on global warming, climate change, or whatever the hell you want to call the current cause celebe.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 12:31:40 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Soon you will see Jessie Jackson and Sharpton trying to get the Nobel reversed !!!
|
Not a problem. We'll just get the bugger a spot on the new IMUS show on WABC.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 12:34:05 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by photodude:
Do we want scientists to have to be Politically Correct now too? |
Just watch what happens if one of them doesn't accept every single current belief on global warming, climate change, or whatever the hell you want to call the current cause celebe. |
Yes, isn't it terrible that someone can't just independently proclaim a scientific theory and have it be accepted by the scientific community? Those PC nazis!! What are the poor industry lobbyists to do? |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 12:43:21 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by ralph:
this topic belongs in Rant
|
I certainly agree with this and hope that SC who regularly claims to see the future might make the move for us. ;)
Originally posted by ralph:
but given that generalized nutrition in Africa & north America are different (& has been for a while!)
and that intelligence tests are invented by & generalized for 'western' culture
and the speaker/researcher is a near 80 (born & raised in a different view point)
i believe it the concept is a pile of crap |
I tend to agree with this myself. I've worked with many people of other races that had far superior intellectual abilities than my own. Oh? Sorry, someone watching my screen pointed out there are billions on earth with intellect greater than mine. ;)
You brought up one point of interest Ralph. I wonder why a better test of intelligence has never come to favor?
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 12:47:17 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Yes, isn't it terrible that someone can't just independently proclaim a scientific theory and have it be accepted by the scientific community? Those PC nazis!! What are the poor industry lobbyists to do? |
And your tongue in cheek comment is an excellent example of the knee jerk reaction to any statement that doesn't match the manifesto. It's all a conspiracy of industry. Ooops, I stray from the OPs subject. My apologies. Perhaps we should start our own thread in rant Don?
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 12:48:19 PM · #15 |
I bet a native tribe in Africa could put one of us into the middle of a large desert and laugh at how stupid we are when we can't even figure out how not to die.
Message edited by author 2007-10-20 12:48:34. |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 12:48:30 PM · #16 |
A quote from Watson's book:
"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
An example of a response:
Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.
"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."
Let me see if I have this right: a Nobel prize-winning scientist, the father of modern DNA research, says that separately-evolving, geographically isolated populations may show differing development of specific traits ΓΆ€” and a politician is condemning him for "personal prejudices"...
Would anybody deny that geographically isolated populations can evolve different skin colors, say? Or heights? Or whatever? Is it outside the realm of possibility that two, geographically isolated populations of brown bears might exhibit differing group intelligences, if one population lived without serious natural predators and the other lived in a harsher environment where survival was dramatically more difficult?
The current climate of "political correctness", and the way it muzzles scientific thought, disturbs me no end. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he doesn't deserve to be demonized.
R.
Message edited by author 2007-10-20 12:50:11.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 12:54:18 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Yes, isn't it terrible that someone can't just independently proclaim a scientific theory and have it be accepted by the scientific community? Those PC nazis!! What are the poor industry lobbyists to do? |
And your tongue in cheek comment is an excellent example of the knee jerk reaction to any statement that doesn't match the manifesto. It's all a conspiracy of industry. Ooops, I stray from the OPs subject. My apologies. Perhaps we should start our own thread in rant Don? |
Let's just agree to disagree. I think scientific theories should be proposed by scientists who have done scientific studies that are then vetted by the scientific community. You think such a process is just politically correct nonsense.
And you're right. I was unfairly targeting industry. Churches and other special interest groups also want the right to create scientific theories. We are robbing them of their inalienable rights! It's in the Constitution! |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 12:56:38 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The current climate of "political correctness", and the way it muzzles scientific thought, disturbs me no end. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he doesn't deserve to be demonized. |
Did you read all of the quotes in that article? |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 01:01:01 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The current climate of "political correctness", and the way it muzzles scientific thought, disturbs me no end. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he doesn't deserve to be demonized. |
Did you read all of the quotes in that article? |
Yes
R.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 01:05:14 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Let's just agree to disagree. I think scientific theories should be proposed by scientists who have done scientific studies that are then vetted by the scientific community. You think such a process is just politically correct nonsense.
|
I can certainly agree to disagree. I also hope you would agree not to place words in my mouth or deign that you should know what I think. You were the party that brought the phrase "politically correct" to the discussion.
Originally posted by posthumous:
And you're right. I was unfairly targeting industry. Churches and other special interest groups also want the right to create scientific theories. We are robbing them of their inalienable rights! It's in the Constitution! |
Good for you. I like it when a liberal puts all his cards out on the table. I think I like you Mr. Posthumous. Perhaps we can debate this over a beer at a GTG sometime.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 01:10:31 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The current climate of "political correctness", and the way it muzzles scientific thought, disturbs me no end. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he doesn't deserve to be demonized. |
Did you read all of the quotes in that article? |
Yes
R. |
I was wondering about this too. I think maybe this was the quote that has caused the majority of the problems:
"He was quoted as saying his hope is that everyone is equal but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true"." If he'd left just this one out I suspect he'd be a little more happy with himself right now. It just goes to show that each of us, even those considered legends, have feet of clay.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 01:20:55 PM · #22 |
From the follow-up interview, also linked (in second post):
Without referring directly to the subject of racial differences, Dr Watson once more invokes the idea that Darwinian natural selection has led to differences in behavioural ability between people from different geographical regions of the world. "We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things," he says. "The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity.
"It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science. To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers."
I don't know about you, but this sounds reasonable to me. It doesn't sound like some sort of racial zealotry to me.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 01:22:15 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The current climate of "political correctness", and the way it muzzles scientific thought, disturbs me no end. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he doesn't deserve to be demonized. |
Did you read all of the quotes in that article? |
Yes
R. |
I was wondering about this too. I think maybe this was the quote that has caused the majority of the problems:
"He was quoted as saying his hope is that everyone is equal but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true"." If he'd left just this one out I suspect he'd be a little more happy with himself right now. It just goes to show that each of us, even those considered legends, have feet of clay. |
Yes, that statement is a serious example of foot-in-mouth disease. But it doesn't invalidate the underlying emphasis of what he is offering up for discussion.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2007 01:35:09 PM · #24 |
| Thank goodness no one has suggested that photography skills are determined by race! Because then we would have to have a REAL serious discussion. |
|
|
|
10/20/2007 01:44:54 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by ErikV:
Thank goodness no one has suggested that photography skills are determined by race! Because then we would have to have a REAL serious discussion. |
Gotta get me some of those icelandic genes... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/12/2025 04:17:23 AM EDT.
