DrmDoc Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 (edited) On 1/13/2019 at 2:26 PM, Strange said: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46856779 Bizarrely: So he repeatedly makes bigoted and discriminatory statements but ... what? He doesn't mean them? Just goes to show, even Nobel Prize winners can be idiots. Watson's clearly racist theories, supposedly based on his genetics and intelligence test perspective, is a prime example of how a scientist's social bias--perhaps a product of his era many decades ago--influences and hinders his investigation and acceptance of thoroughly researched and generally accepted evidence in science contrary to whatever support he endorses. Humanity, regardless of skin pigmentation or geographical origin, share an equal capacity to learn, anticipate, and innovate, which I believe are truer measures of intelligence. Edited January 20, 2019 by DrmDoc
CharonY Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, MigL said: Hopefully I'm not inundated with neg points also, but... If his opinions are based on experimental data, then, should we not be attacking his experimental methodology ( which may have produced dubious results ), rather than the scientist ? It is willful overinterpretation of faulty data by someone without training on the subject. On top he his opinion have been around for quite a while, he is just using the said overinterpretation to justify his views (or perhaps they happened in parallel, he said a lot of things over time).
Impressive Science Word Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 1 minute ago, DrmDoc said: Humanity, regardless of skin pigmentation or geographical origin, share an equal capacity to learn, anticipate, and innovate, which I believe are truer measures of intelligence. Some people are really dumb.
Impressive Science Word Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, CharonY said: It is willful overinterpretation of faulty data by someone without training on the subject. On top he his opinion have been around for quite a while, he is just using the said overinterpretation to justify his views (or perhaps they happened in parallel, he said a lot of things over time). What data?
Sensei Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Impressive Science Word said: Some people are really dumb. True. Some. But the question is whether their dumbness is genetically encoded, or their dumbness is result of poorness of parents unable to give them as good start as other people, good education, or their dumbness is result of environment influence like indoctrination, brainwashing, inappropriate friends and family.. James Watson born in Chicago, where is large population of Afro-Americans. He noticed poor and simple people without money for education for generations, and extrapolated it further to entire population.. Edited January 20, 2019 by Sensei
StringJunky Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, CharonY said: It is willful overinterpretation of faulty data by someone without training on the subject. On top he his opinion have been around for quite a while, he is just using the said overinterpretation to justify his views (or perhaps they happened in parallel, he said a lot of things over time). Watson is clearly a case that illustrates that just because someone discovers something doesn't mean that they understand it.
DrmDoc Posted January 20, 2019 Author Posted January 20, 2019 3 minutes ago, Impressive Science Word said: Some people are really dumb. What people and by what measure? What is the basis your opinion?
Impressive Science Word Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Sensei said: True. Some. But the question is whether their dumbness is genetically encoded, or their dumbness is result of poorness of parents unable to give them as good start as other people, good education, or their dumbness is result of environment influence like indoctrination, brainwashing, inappropriate friends and family.. It's largely genetic, you have methods such as adoption studies. Then the Marxist charlatan will throw out Occam's razor because of his a priori equality fantasy and posit "uterine poisoning' or "Venusian beams" or "increasing-with-distance white hatred" some other non-falsifiable imaginary variable to explain an absolutely consistent temporal and spatial pattern that would be noted as obviously genetic in any other (infra) subspecies or race. Quote What people and by what measure? What is the basis your opinion? Sometimes I go out of my house and talk to people, and they seem really dumb. Perhaps everyone seems equally smart to you. Perhaps you have never been outside. Perhaps you are just insane. I don't know. Edited January 20, 2019 by Impressive Science Word -3
Sensei Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 Just now, Impressive Science Word said: It's largely genetic, you have methods such as adoption studies. Then the Marxist charlatan will throw out Occam's razor because of his a priori equality fantasy and posit "uterine poisoning' or "Venusian beams" or "increasing-with-distance white hatred" some other non-falsifiable imaginary variable to explain an absolutely consistent temporal and spatial pattern that would be noted as obviously genetic in any other (infra) subspecies or race. You are writing nonsense.. 1
Impressive Science Word Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Sensei said: You are writing nonsense.. How deliciously ironic. Toodle pip. Quote Trolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem There's also a book "Logic for Dummies" I think. Check it out. Edited January 20, 2019 by Impressive Science Word
DrmDoc Posted January 20, 2019 Author Posted January 20, 2019 3 minutes ago, Sensei said: You are writing nonsense.. Either that or he's trolling.. 2 minutes ago, Impressive Science Word said: How deliciously ironic. Toodle pip. Trolling.
MigL Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 (edited) If you are serious, perhaps you'll post links to these genetic studies which prove genetic/racial based intelligence ( not IQ, as that is demonstrably false ). But I have to wonder what are your metrics/criteria for intelligence ? We may be able to isolate the 'intelligence' gene, splice into rats, and have them navigate the maze a lot faster. ( sorry, sarcastic comment ) Edited January 20, 2019 by MigL
Strange Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Impressive Science Word said: Science often does discriminate between things. It's also called measurement. I guess that isn't possible when you're surrounded by shrieking Marxist lunatics. And what's bigoted about making a statement based on an observation? Surely making a statement based on your imaginary and delusional a priori "equality" nonsense is bigoted, i.e. holding a view in the face of evidence to the contrary. Note that I was quoting his son's comments about him making bigoted and discriminatory comments. Maybe you should take it up with him.
DrmDoc Posted January 20, 2019 Author Posted January 20, 2019 55 minutes ago, Impressive Science Word said: Sometimes I go out of my house and talk to people, and they seem really dumb. Perhaps everyone seems equally smart to you. Perhaps you have never been outside. Perhaps you are just insane. I don't know. How depressing to find the people you talk to outside your home are not as smart by some measure of your own expectation. Smart people say and do what appears to be thoughtless and dumb things but that doesn't necessarily suggest low intelligence, IMO. What Watson says and believes regarding the ethnic basis of intelligence doesn't suggests he's dumb, just misinformed by his personal bias and interpretation of what he perceives as evidence. IDK, perhaps what may be true for Watson might be true for you. As to whether I'm insane, that seems to be a discussion best suited for our Speculation Forum rather than here in Science News.
Raider5678 Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Impressive Science Word said: It's largely genetic, you have methods such as adoption studies. It's not genetic, it's cultural. African countries aren't genetically stupid, they're simply overwhelming culturally primitive.
CharonY Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 2 hours ago, Raider5678 said: African countries aren't genetically stupid, they're simply overwhelming culturally primitive. I suspect that you mean well, but read the sentence carefully and think about what a careless declaration such as this entails. 2
Recommended Posts