james watson

[beefs]

<p>i am sorry to say that i am dissapointed by the remarks made by Chicago alumni James Watson…how terribly dishonorable</p>

[phuriku]

<p>By the comments he’s been making lately, this should hardly come as a surprise.</p>

<p>But dishonorable? Nah. Let him say what he wants to say.</p>

[metonymy]

<p>wait. what’s he saying?</p>

[phuriku]

<p>

wait. what’s he saying?

</p>

<p><a href=“http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/19/uk.race/[/url]”>http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/19/uk.race/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

Nobel laureate biologist James Watson was suspended Friday from his longtime post at a research laboratory and canceled his planned British book tour after controversial comments that black people are not as intelligent as white people.

</p>

<p>

The controversy began with an October 14 interview Watson gave to the Sunday Times, which quoted him saying he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really.”</p>

<p>Watson also asserted there was no reason to believe different races separated by geography should have evolved identically, and he said that while he hoped everyone was equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true.”

</p>

<p>

In 1997, Britain’s Sunday Telegraph quoted Watson as saying that if a gene for homosexuality were isolated, women who find that their unborn child has the gene should be allowed to have an abortion.</p>

<p>During a lecture tour in 2000, he suggested there might be links between skin color and sexual prowess and between a person’s weight and their level of ambition.</p>

<p>And in a British TV documentary that aired in 2003, Watson suggested that stupidity was a genetic disease that should be treated.

</p>

<p>I think the points Watson brings up are quite interesting… it’s simply the way he comments that is offensive. Of course, as Americans, we would always rather quickly dismiss any ideas that are displeasing or slightly uncomfortable than search for scientific truth.</p>

[unalove]

<p>Is he citing actual studies, though? And if so, how strongly do these studies suggest these results? I have a feeling he’s making things up. If such a study indicated any of the above things, I think we would have heard about them…</p>

<p>The man is entitled to his opinions, but when he attempts to state something as fact, he needs to cite properly, just like the rest of us.</p>

[ramaswami]

<p>Watson raises legitimate issues which need to be debated, neither accepted nor rejected outright. But in America all science is politicised. There are certain socially desirable outcomes that the neo-Marxist, feminist and multicultural lobbies want and they have taken over academe.</p>

[unalove]

<p>From: <a href=“http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3078883.ece#2007-10-20T00:00:01-00:00[/url]”>http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3078883.ece#2007-10-20T00:00:01-00:00&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

Other scientists, however, deplored his comments, arguing that they have no scientific basis. Craig Venter, who pioneered the decoding of the human genome, said: “There is no basis in scientific fact or in the human genetic code for the notion that skin colour will be predictive of intelligence.”

</p>

<p>Science is about scrutiny. You can’t put up anything “scientific” on this website-- whether it be US News ranks, RP scores, anything-- without it being criticized left, right, and center. If such findings exist, they too need to be scrutinized.</p>

<p>I’m all for academic freedom, and as much as I might want to slug somebody like Mearsheimer for personal reasons (<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0374177724/bookstorenow16-20)%5B/url%5D”>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0374177724/bookstorenow16-20)</a>, I believe that such people play an important role in furthering what we know and how we know that we know it. It’s still unclear whether Watson is referring to specific experiments and lines of reasoning.</p>

[bartleby]

<p>He’s probably referring to studies like the ones cited by this book:
<a href=“IQ and Global Inequality - Wikipedia”>IQ and Global Inequality - Wikipedia;

<p>It’s disappointing that such a brilliant scientist like James Watson would be suspended from his duties at a laboratory for these comments, but Ahmadinejad would be allowed to speak at Columbia. It’s not the latter that’s the problem - it’s the existence of a double standard that is.</p>

[uchicagoalum]

<p>Why he would make these comments at public events though I do not understand. Certainly, we need rigorous debate about issues raised by the Bell Curve and other texts. That being said, much like the Lawrence Summers incident regarding women in science at Harvard, it should not be done publically but rather within the academy. There is a big difference between sitting down in a closed door seminar at MIT and hashing out these issues and doing them at events where you have reporters and the like. </p>

<p>Caveat: Summers made his remarks in a closed door meeting.</p>

[proletariat2]

<p>bartleby, that in itself is a double standard. Ahmadinejad cannot discriminate against homosexuals; there are none in Iran! (if you recall his comments)</p>

[ramaswami]

<p>proletariat, apparently Ahmedinijad does not discriminate against homosexuals since there are none in Iraq! He may be giving his version of don’t ask, don’t tell, which means he is certainly not discriminating.</p>

[bartleby]

<p>lol @ prole :)</p>

[PoeticExplosion]

<p>If he has scientific backing for his statements, it’s perfectly legitimate, even courageous, for him to make them. However if, as I suspect, he does not have scientific backing, he is being intellectually dishonest and racist.</p>

<p>I supported Summers’ statement because that issue has not been settled yet, and there is evidence for his point of view, but this is an entirely different situation.</p>

[unalove]

<p>This article in the Maroon is interesting… read down towards the end, where people who know him well talk about him:</p>

<p><a href=“http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/news/2007/10/19/watson-denounced-for-racism/[/url]”>http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/news/2007/10/19/watson-denounced-for-racism/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[phuriku]

<p>

<a href=“http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_ed...ed-for-racism/[/url][/quote]”>http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_ed...ed-for-racism/

</a></p>

<p>The comments made by Ellen Scott are infinitely more idiotic than the comments made by Watson.</p>

<p>

According to Scott, the idea behind Watson’s comments has never had a scientific foundation. Moreover, the genetic idea that some groups of people are physiologically better has been used in colonialism, Nazi Germany, slavery, and the exploitation of women.

</p>

[beefs]

<p>how is that idiotic?,</p>

[phuriku]

<p>Because we can say that any other idea has been associated with bad things. Christianity, for example. It’s usually a pretty good idea to ignore any comment that compares something or other with Nazi Germany. In fact, that’s generally when you know a debate has gone too far and logical reasoning has long been surpassed:</p>

<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>And obviously, the validity of the statement is independent of what movements it has been used in in the past.</p>

[siberian]

<p>Someday, a scientific finding might say an opposite, making more people angry. Is it OK to murmur “still earth circles?” Veritas Lux Mea</p>