BS: Racism of top scientist?

Subject: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 08:03 PM

If anyone else has started a thread on this, I have missed it, sorry.

news report here

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 08:52 PM

Current book-
James D. Watson, "Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science."
Knopf, 368pp. (U. S. edition).

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: gnu
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 09:06 PM

Disgusting.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 09:28 PM

The immaturity of those in charge of the Science Museum is evident, but 'disgusting seems a little strong.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 09:47 PM

Disgusting is not strong enough.

How about contemptable, despicable and detestable?

I think its also objectionable and obnoxious.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 10:52 PM

Immaturity at the Science Museum? They were right to cancel him, for the very simple reason that he'll never be able to speak about his work in science again.

Every where he goes, people will demand that he explain his remarks. They'll put him on display like a caged animal and goad him till he embarasses himself again--Goodby Science Museum, Hello Jerry Springer!!

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 11:18 PM

such strong language! It is as dangerous to apply caustic comments to Watson's ideas as it is for him to carfelessly toss out assertions like that.
Watson obviously believes what he says...on several topics. He is, himself, educated & intelligent...yet has allowed himself to draw almost silly conclusions from 'data.

Of COURSE 'tests' show some cultures and ethnic groups to have lower scores on IQ tests....but this in no way proves why. If he is the scientist he thinks he is, he'd need to have something more than reports from "...people who have to deal with black employees."

People will believe him, though, just as they believed Hitler and others, so it is up to those in the scientific community who KNOW how to answer him should do so...clearly and carefully, not with epithets like 'disgusting'. It is a serious claim, and should be either proved...or resoundingly disproved!

It is easy to begin. If Watson can refer to "...people who have to deal with black employees", I can refer to the black PHDs in math, physics, astronomy etc., who have shown that intelligence is not reserved to Watson's race ethnic group. (There IS only one 'race').

If Watson thinks he can design tests that support claims like that, he should say so, or shut up.

There ARE some physical attributes that are associated with different groups, due to evolution...and yeah, 'most' white men CAN'T jump as high....and there are sound reasons why, just as sickle cell anemia is a disease of mostly black men.

here is one page which attempts to look at the issue....I wonder if Watson has read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 12:06 AM

Perhaps a quote from Watson's latest book will lead to rational rather than emotional comment.

"A priori, 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. Rather than face up to facts that will likely change the way we look at ourselves, many persons of goodwill may see only harm in our looking too closely at individual genetic essenses."
He also points to a search for genes that significantly affect a person's intelligence, and characterizes it as a "very hot potato."

He does not "draw any conclusions," merely points out avenues of investigation. This is the nature of scientific inquiry; where it will lead, the future will tell.

He also says scientists may identify malfunctioning genes that predispose people to criminal habits or behavior (Several other geneticists already are investigating genes and behavior). He writes that "the integrity of science, no less than that of ethics, demands that we let the truth be known"

See post above for book reference, American edition. So far, I have only looked at a few pages of his book; it seems to have quite a bit of gossip about other scientists in it. This may be boring to many readers. A review I saw called the book boring and disappointing when compared with his previous works.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 12:14 AM

This isn't as unusual as you might think. Pick up a copy of Donna Haraway's Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science, (1989), and read her chapter on "Teddy Bear Patriarchy." It's about how scientists at New York's American Museum of Natural History were directly responsible in shaping immigration legislation (the quotas of 1921 & 1924) in the early 20th century, based upon Social Darwinism and the "superiority" of some races over others.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Frogprince, in San Francisco.
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 12:37 AM

Adding up a few of his remarks pertaining to "race" and intelligence, "beauty" in women, and homosexuality, you come up with the irony of a man who had the intelligence to sort out the structure of DNA, but who comes off as ignorant as any "cracker" in Georgia.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 12:58 AM

That's a great read in that link, Bill D.

This really struck home with me:

"Biological explanations for behavioral differences are dangerous. Every time you hear someone give a biological explanation for behavioral differences between groups, you should be suspicious. In societies with large differences in wealth, power, and opportunities between people, biology is used to justify inequality and exploitation. Biology is seen as natural and unchangeable, and it gives members of the advantaged group the opportunity to say, "Well, it's too bad that some people are much better off than others, but that's just the way it is. There's really nothing we can do about it." Be suspicious."

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Rowan
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 01:07 AM

BillD was on the right track in writing
"It is easy to begin. If Watson can refer to "...people who have to deal with black employees", I can refer to the black PHDs in math, physics, astronomy etc., who have shown that intelligence is not reserved to Watson's race ethnic group. (There IS only one 'race').

"If Watson thinks he can design tests that support claims like that, he should say so, or shut up"
but he could have gone further.

Watson belongs to the school of scientists that employs reductionism (limiting experimental design so that, in any experiment, all variables except one are kept constant and analysis is done on the effect of the one variable) and would probably accept Popper's dictum on defining science; a statement/hypothesis/idea is not scientific unless you dan design an experiment that could disprove it and, if your proposition can't be so tested it ain't science.

The plethora of examples already contradicting Watson's proposal categorises his statement as "poorly informed", at the very least. Watson'e abilities in experimental design may be excellent applied to DNA analysis but I've seen very little evidence that he is truly a polymath, let alone what used to be termed "a renaissance man." In the matters he addresses he's no better than Joe Bloggs, with due respect to any real people who revel in that name.

And when Bill writes
"There ARE some physical attributes that are associated with different groups, due to evolution...and yeah, 'most' white men CAN'T jump as high....and there are sound reasons why, just as sickle cell anemia is a disease of mostly black men"
he's displaying his US context.

There are at least three different alleles for sickle cell anaemia; each arose in separate areas where malaria was endemic, as a genetic response to the negative selection pressure applied on the human population. The one in the African American population did indeed come from west Africa but another came from the Mediterranean (particularly Italy and Greece, where I think people with black skins were originally a bit thin on the ground) and another comes from SE Asia and is also not associated with people who have black skins.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 03:03 AM

My impression from what I have heard of the debate so far is that the scientific reaction is largely centred about the thought that the man is speculating about a field in which he has no expertise. I gather however that the BNP has not been slow to latch on to the idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 03:17 AM

Watson is a classic example of a clever scientist using his authority outside his domain. He is a molecular biologist, not a geneticist, and certainly not a human evolutionary geneticist. Knowing the structure of DNA doesn't help one bit with assessing the phenotypical results of genetic differences, but it does get your opinions on the front pages of newspapers.

For a far better view of human intelligence, read Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasurement of Man,

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 03:59 AM

But he does seem rather an "equal opportunity" advocate with his insults(?)

Race remarks get Nobel winner in trouble (Associated Press)

[quote]

In 2000 Watson shocked an audience at the University of California, Berkeley, when he advanced a theory about a link between skin color and sex drive.

His lecture, complete with slides of bikini-clad women, argued that extracts of melanin — which give skin its color — had been found to boost subjects' sex drive.

"That's why you have Latin lovers," he said, according to people who attended the lecture. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."

[endquote]

John

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 05:53 AM

Instead of banning him, or withdrawing the invitation, let him make his lecture, listen to what he has to say, and then aftewards, refute him point by point: which, I am sure, would not be too hard to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: redsnapper
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 06:32 AM

This is not the first time Watson has said very stupid things. Not the first top scientist (I meet many) a little past his sell-by date.

RS

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:33 AM

Still, one has to wonder if it's helpful to take some subjects "off the table." Remember Larry Summers--it doesn't pay to think out loud.

            Another thing is, one wonders what his "control group" is. In North America, most people of color, and many others too, have all kinds of ethnic genes in their makeup. I don't know how you'd isolate them.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: PMB
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 09:32 AM

It looks like he's stepped right in it- latest report says his lab have sacked him. Silly man.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 09:34 AM

To paraphrase Riginslinger, there are too many confounding factors to evaluate the truth or falsehood of Watson's statements on race and gender. He, as a scientist should know this and should avoid shooting from the lip in his public statements [unless he is just trying to sell books].

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 09:34 AM

You should not cherry pick the science that supports your preconcieved notions. Sometimes your sacred values can turn out to be mistated or simply divergent from the truth.

It has also been found that significant diversity causes more strife than neighborhoods that are less diverse.

Kidna goes against the American motherhood and apple pie melting pot legend, doesn't it.

Survival and intelligence need not be lumped together. The DNA record can include changes from the grandparents to the the grandchildren due to famine or other life changing factors, as well as store the experience and adaaptation that goes back millions of years.

To presume we understand the human genome at this point is just plain wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:15 AM

In 1954 (?) when Crick, Watson (and Wilkins ?) announced they'd 'cracked' the structure of DNA--that is, reached the brilliant conclusion that it was a double helix--they paved the way for many other things, not the least of which is testing prior to birth for certain genetic problems that a fetus might have or determining the real 'whodunit' of the mystery novel. However, expertise in one area does not make any of those men experts in another. We recognize that when 'celebrities' add their names to political campaigns as though their voice behind the candidate will get that person votes. I'd forget that a team effort resulted in Watson getting the Nobel way back and maybe concentrate on what he said. The man is 78 years old and he may have had too much aluminium in his diet.

The premise he espouses was already tried, about 30 years ago. It didn't fly then and it ain't gonna fly now. Even smart people can be stupid. Remember: racism creates its own justifications.


Dear Dr Watson,

Fuck off.

B Murdoch

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:25 AM

I was going by memory--read "The Double Helix" back in 1970 or so. It was Wilson, not Wilkins.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: John Hardly
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:29 AM

One of the larger flaws in his thesis:

"A priori, 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. Rather than face up to facts that will likely change the way we look at ourselves, many persons of goodwill may see only harm in our looking too closely at individual genetic essenses."
He also points to a search for genes that significantly affect a person's intelligence, and characterizes it as a "very hot potato."

...is that it has made a HUGE jump to a wrong conclusion. The leap is in the assertion that races have followed a different evolutionary track. They have not. In fact, there is no such thing as diverse "races" in homo sapiens at this point. We are all one race.

Thus, though the assertion that "...there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically" may be true...

...there has been no "geographically separated evolution" at this point. And now, with the world of communication and transportation such as it is, even if a few million years down the road it looks as though there COULD have been such "geographically separated evolution", it is unlikely that such a thing would ever occur.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:33 AM

A review of the book, "Junk Science" by Dan Agin.


"An overdue indictment of government, industry, and faith groups that twist science for their own gain. During the next thirty years, the American public will suffer from a rampage against reason by special interests in government, commerce, and the faith industry, and the rampage has already begun. In Junk Science, Dan Agin offers a response-a stinging condemnation of the egregious and constant warping of science for ideological gain. In this provocative, wide-ranging, and hard-hitting book, Agin argues from the center that we will pay a heavy price for the follies of people who consciously twist the public's understanding of the real world. In an entertaining but frank tone, Agin separates fact from conveniently 'scientific' fiction and exposes the data faking, reality ignoring, fear mongering, and outright lying that contribute to intentionally manufactured public ignorance. Many factions twist scientific data to maintain riches and power, and Agin outs them all in sections like these: --'Buyer Beware' (genetically modified foods, aging, and tobacco companies)--'Medical Follies' (chiropractics, health care, talk therapy)--'Poison and Bombs in the Greenhouse' (pollution, warfare, global warming)--'Religion, Embryos, and Cloning'--'Genes, Behavior, and Race' We already pay a heavy price for many groups' conscious manipulation of the public's understanding of science, and Junk Science arms us with understanding, cutting through the fabric of lies and setting the record straight."

from Amazon Books site.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: John Hardly
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:33 AM

"However, expertise in one area does not make any of those men experts in another."

One of the most notably employed logical fallacies of this type is the Einstein quote that one cannot simultaneously have peace and prepare for war.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:40 AM

I remember reading somewhere that scientists had proved that the Chinese/Japanese as a group - where the most intelligent humans. All I know is that I'm not as intelligent as Nelson Mandella! But I can probably play the guitar better than him!

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:49 AM

This article, the result of very clear thinking, is excellent.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 01:03 PM

Excellent aricles Peace. "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond also has much to say about geography being the determining factor in the disparity between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' among world cultures.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: folk1e
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 01:06 PM

Separate geographical locations have allowed the human genome to have different expressions. That is why we can say someone is Asian or Caucasian. There are other genetic differences, one of which is the ability to metabolize alcohol.
We all have different IQs but does anybody care if one group is marginally higher than another? Have we done "double blind" tests to prove the point?
What does IQ measure anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 01:09 PM

"What does IQ measure anyway?"

Well, I don't want to brag, but I passed my IQ test. Got 67. HA! But I will still spak with all of you. I didn't become a snob because of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 01:14 PM

The HUman Genome project is housed in a building that could hold several Spruce Goose's and is about 15 miles from my house. The guy who runs the project selected his OWN DNA to run the first genome decoding project. He also holds all information as a propriatary secret and demands profit from every patent they make on DNA.

The other giant in the Human Genome research is about the same age as Mr Mega profit and is from Virginia. This Virginia scientist is also very religious and believes that the science of human DNA is God given and should belong to the people free of charge.

The argument between these two gentlemen is an argument that we all should have had 20 years ago when General Electric first patented life and got the Supreme Court to go along with them.

One reason we have all the new dealy E Coli outbreaks is that GE developed many of the new strains. The reason they did so might amze you. They were trying to get cows to be able to eat waste saw dust instead of grass. A new bacteria was needed for this runinating challenge. Mnay cows exploded LITERALLY in the process of discovery. Deadly bacteria won the challenge but not GE 's profit motive to feed cows free saw dust.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 02:19 PM

Donuel, can you provide any source material about the GE stuff.
Not that I don't believe it, I would just be interesting in reading up.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 02:35 PM

Interesting suject and definitely one that people have strong views on. Personally I would go with the article a way up the page that said most differences are superficial (eg, skin hair etc.).

Having said that, any idea is worth looking at. I personally wouldn't expect genetics to have any noticeable effect on IQ, but if it did, there would surely be all sorts of implications. Tricky thing to experiment on though. How on earth would you keep cultural factors, quality of education etc constant when you can't really even measure them?

Also such information would create havoc. Imagine for example that it was proved that one race had a higher IQ than another and it was genetically based. The variation within that genetic group would presumably be as big as in any other. So you would still have very clever people in the 'stupid race' and very stupid people in the 'clever race'. Very few of the clever people who had the wrong skin or nose or whatever would get jobs in areas where intelligence is perceived as important though.

On top of that, IQ doesn't really 'mean' a whole lot. There's no link to common sense. There's no link to work ethic. There's no link to monetary, romantic or any other form of success really other than academic.

At the end of the day it sounds as if this particular comment was just someone prejudiced speaking his mind, but I don't think any subject area should be taboo. You won't make society better by censoring ideas. You might if you teach people to think those ideas through and question them.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 02:40 PM

Well, the only usable definition of "intelligence"I've ever encountered was that whicj is measured by IQ tests. Which doesn't indicate a helluva lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 03:03 PM

Ok...the latest....Watson has apologized and backed off...but he was still suspended from his position. "The board of trustees at New York's Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, which Watson has led for nearly four decades, said they had suspended his administrative responsibilities pending a review of his comments."

"The biologist apologized "unreservedly" Thursday for his comments and said he was "mortified" by the words attributed to him."

"I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said," Watson said during an appearance at the Royal Society in London. "I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways that they have."

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 04:15 PM

'Rick Kittles, an associate professor of genetic medicine at the University of Chicago, said Watson's remarks aren't backed by science.

"It's a rather ignorant statement from an intelligent man," said Kittles, who is also scientific director of African Ancestry Inc., which helps African-Americans trace their genetic heritage. "Unfortunately, when a Nobel laureate says Africans are less intelligent than Europeans, the average person on the street runs with it. That's the sad part."'

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 05:37 PM

We bring good things to life

was not an accidental pun. GE started patenting life forms (except for Full term humans as ruled by the court) right before they started using that brand recognition phrase.

I bet your own google sleuthing would reveal not only the court decisions in favor of GE patents on life but also the early E coli experiments. Since many of the experiments did lead to public harm there may have been some creative deletions in the last 30 years.
PCB was a lesson hard learned by GE.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: M.Ted
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:03 PM

I remember something a principal pointed out to a group of us aspiring teachers, a long time ago--that the best students are not the smartest students, they are the ones that work the hardest.

This isn't exactly a revelation-but it is true--and it means that, even if there was a discernable genetic component to IQ, and even if IQ was truly reflective of intellectual capacity, IQ isn't a very good predictor of achievement.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:41 PM

We confuse intelligence with memory as well.

I was saddened when I first read this story on the net, recalling that giant achievment of which he had been a part. As a freshman in high school I was given the chance to go to a conference for HS students on the DNA code discovery. It was the hot topic of the day and I was honored to attend. They were heroes in a new way for me.

So I found it sad initially but realized that it is much like another hero said, "Show me a hero and I'll show you a bum." Hopefully he is sincere in his latest statements.

Thanks for that link Bill.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Rumncoke
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:18 PM

It isn't the results which are significant - it's the IQ test - it was devised to sort out a particular set of Humans - presumably the ones which live in the same general type of neighbourhood as the devisers.

It was intended to quantify something fairly undefinable, but which the devisers understood to be something good.

When applied to different sets of Humans living in other areas, it probably simply shows how the test fails when applied to another culture.

All IQ tests show is how good someone is at doing IQ tests.

The only thing which is common to all humans is that we are all individuals - even identical twins, sharing the same DNA, can easily be distinguished by their pet dogs and cats.

Whatever the differences are, however thay are measured, the only true measure of intellegence or stupidity might just be how easily they can be fooled into thinking that there is a way to grade the quality of a person by having them do some sort of test.

Is that a paradox?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:23 PM

No, I think Watson and Crick were a paradox..............paradox..................I'll be leaving now..........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:28 PM

I like Doc Watson's "Salt Crick". One of my fave-o-rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:29 PM

Sheesh, Spaw. Talk about a guy with too much aluminium: THIS is a paradox.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:28 PM

as opposed to a pair o' doxies

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 11:02 PM

Some forty years ago, along with others, I was invited to submit a research paper to a volume exploring aspects of the field of Exobiology by scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and prepared under the auspices of NASA. This also is considered a problematical area of research by many, since it involves speculation and research on the possibility of life elsewhere, and the forms it might take. Everything from organo-chemical evolution to identification of possible fossils in meteorites was covered.

Some advice came verbally and highly recommended from NASA scientists that might keep us to avoid being subjected to ridicule and our contributions deep-sixed. Dr. Watson could have used that advice.

Never speak to the press without clearance. If it is deemed desirable, the press may be given a written, pre-cleared statement. Never discuss your speculations. Results are for scientific gatherings and publication only, not to be given to the press or public.
The press is after a story that will sell; they have no regard for nuances, qualifications or exceptions and no respect for the person being interviewed.

I have no idea what Dr. Watson said to the reporters; obviously he said too much when he should have said nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 11:46 PM

Scientists are often blinded by attempts to prove preconceived theories. When objectivity is lost bad science is the result. At times these theories are very unpopular such as this one. Others such as the causes of global warming seem to be much more readily accepted, but are given birth by the same wish to prove a theory by ignoring contradicting data.
To often there is a desire to expound beyond what can be or not be proven. When we try to average a large group and compare that to the average of another large group results may be not at all as they appear.
Perhaps starvation and disease may keep one group lower than the other even though the upper percentage of the lower group may exceed the same upper percentage of the higher one. This proves nothing! I can statistically prove that the most deadly places are hospitals by showing that more people die there than most other places.
Figures don't lie but liars figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Rowan
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 12:16 AM

Robyn Williams, who broadcasts the Science Show weekly on ABC Radio National (Oz) was asked (on air in the Breakfast program, on Thursday I think) about Watson's comments. Having interviewed Watson about 15 or so times over the years, Robyn Williams made the point that Watson was well known as a person who liked to start controversy and, when challenged about having gone too far, would (apparently genuinely) appear surprised that his comments could possibly be taken to mean whatever it was that people were complaining about. "Attention seeker", "adolescent" and "puerile" were three words I recall being used to describe Watson's frequent behaviour in stirring up controversy and subsequent understanding of the reactions.

Watson's behaviour in starting the current controversy and his subsequent reactions seem to have been accurately described.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:18 AM

I remember when I was in school, everyone joked about continental drift. It was believed impossible by most scientists. Now it is the basis of our knowledge about the disposition of the continents, their positions in past ages, heat flow and some other factors in the evolution of our earth's crust.

Now we are just beginning to learn something about about the structure of life. The beliefs of Bush and others who oppose embryonic stem cell and the development of other advanced techniques will only drop us farther behind those who have the will to advance. Undoubtedly there is much to learn, some of it will be distasteful to the ignorant or belief-bound, and certainly some going in directions we find it difficult to imagine.

Hypotheses are propounded, and as observations are gathered, they become theories. Some wither and die as they fail to fit observations, others may be promising but are held in abeyance until support does or does not develop at a future time.

Preconceptions are sometimes useful as they are often quickly tested, and disposed of as observations fail to support them; often a problem is attacked by what researchers call "the theory of multiple working prejudices" (or hypotheses if you prefer), which is a handy base from which to start an investigation. It is used more often than the old 'scientific method.' Contradictory data are a fact of investigations in their early stages, additional work may sort them out, sometimes resolving one conflict but leading to others- science is not straight line. Nothing wrong in setting up a straw man to knock down as progress is made.

Ideas and hypotheses always are ahead of the 'facts'- they are the necessary beginning.

People want a simple model of global warming; it is a complex result of interacting streams. The earth, through its history, has had strong climate fluctuations; during the Tertiary Period much of the Arctic had temperate climates and forest elements of the southeastern states. The cause was not simple, involved was the axis of inclination of the earth, the lack of mountains to interfere with air flow, ocean currents, solar radiation, etc.

Twelve thousand years ago, much of the northern plains and the prairie provinces of Canada were covered with an ice sheet. The last tiny remnants are melting now.
Our major 'ice-boxes,' Greenland and the Antarctic icecap, are melting at accelerating rates now. Is this due entirely to a shift away from an ice age to a warm period or has Man something to do with it? Ice cores show a drastic rise in greenhouse gases over the last hundred years, accompanied by a rise in man-made chemicals- surely this has significance!
Regardless of what you believe, ice is melting, sea levels are rising, animal distribution both terrestrial and marine is changing, arid and wet areas of the globe are shifting- if we plan ahead, the effects will be ameliorated. Populations may have to shift drastically or find other means of sustenance, but at least something will be done.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 09:54 AM

"I have no idea what Dr. Watson said to the reporters; obviously he said too much when he should have said nothing."

               ...and with that my friend, Sherlock Holmes, stormed out of our rooms on Baker street, and left Inspector LaStrade and I standing there, staring into the fireplace.