BS: Racism of top scientist?

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: 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,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: 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: 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 - 10:29 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 - 10:25 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: gnu
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 09:06 PM

Disgusting.

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: 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