You forgot "while applying scientific principles". Or do you really think that science should be indistinguishable from a beer driven bull session? Before they were crimes against humanity, these were both sterling examples of bad science. The only reason you can't call Watson's remarks bad science is because he wasn't actually doing science; he was just talking out his ass.
No one is preventing Watson from doing his... uh, "work". Cold Spring is a private institution, AFAIK, and has no responsibility to allow him to alter their reputation (for better or worse, I suppose, depending on who is listening to Watson). He's not being stifled- he's being told that he cannot work where he was working. That simply means that he'll have to find like-minded colleagues and another way to bankroll his research. Where one door closes, another opens. Surely there are enough people who share his worldview that he can hook up with them.
I think you're getting hung up on transitory details. You present these facts as historically deterministic--the way it is in 2007 is the way it will always be. History, according to you, was working its way to this point where everyone's natural talent--unimpeded by social structure--gets a fair play and voila! blacks are better sprinters, better marathoners, better basketball players; Latinos are "natural" boxers, Brazilians (wait, is that a "race"?!) are better soccer players, and whites are only good at golf, gymnastics, swimming, figure skating, and fencing. Huh? Get some historical perspective. Sport is traditionally one of the first arenas in which equality--and then dominance--occur just before and then after an opening of the social structure. It's not an accident that--boxing again, because it's linear and obvious--the heavy weight champions from the late 1800s are all Irish. It was the era during and after the Irish waves of immigration to the US. Suddenly at the turn of the century, the champions' names all ended with Stein and Bloom. Then suddenly it's Canzoneri, Battalino, Graziano, etc. Might this have SOMEthing to do with migrant waves of immigrants to the US? Suddenly in the 40s all the champions are black. Well, hell, the Civil Rights movement didn't occur in a vacuum. The late 30s and 40s laid the groundwork for it. Sports is reflection of our social structure--especially sports that don't require a lot of capital investment to participate in. For the most part, those who are upper middle class and up have less need to prove themselves in arenas outside the classroom and, later, in the work force. Sports is an obvious response by the under privileged to a lack of opportunity. Sports, eSPECially these days is the ultimate equalizer--naturally those with an otherwise closed opportunity structure will gravitate towards an arena where their talents will be taken seriously and measured fairly. But, by all means, continue to convince yourself that its genetics that makes blacks better sprinters and marathoners at the same time.
As I understand it, our genes are so similar that to talk of human as having different races is false. But I'm not the scientist. I was speaking hypotetically, I am saying that if somehow there was to be evidence that somebody is smarter than somebody else, that shouldn't change anything in the way we act towards each other. And what about gender? Another social construction?
Oh, excellent. So your position is that Watson's comments are actually in pursuit of his research? Well, no wonder he was fired. He's missed all of the intervening work in genetics since his discoveries. Lazy and willfully stupid is no way to go through life.
See. Bag of hammers. What he said flew over my head. I forgot about the threadjacking potential of this turning into an abortion debate.
My 8th grader told me a few days ago that in her opinion, blacks seem to laugh at everything, even when it isn't funny. I postulate that this has to do the lingering effects of Sanford and Son. [youtube]Zd6XLYVc9IA[/youtube]
Watson hasn't been practicing science for quite a few years! What he did in this particular issue of race and intelligence has NOTHING to do with science.
but what is the scientific answer to that quesion? While much of what Watson said might be wrapped up in attitudes that are throwback to the 1950s brought on by dementia, one of his big points was that the view you have isn't a scientifically proven point, yet it's stated as if it is proven, and anyone who dares questions it is a deluded racist. If nothing else it could disprove a few things. East Asians, for example, thought to be genetically less tall than others around the world, now seem to "surprisingly" grow just as tall if they eat a western diet. It maybe a rather unwholesome subject to consider, but does that mean it musn't be considered? People, after all, happily accept that a greyhound is genetically all but identical to a yorkshire terrier, but the yorkie isn't going to win many races, even if given the inside trap. Now clearly humans are a bunch of mongrels rather than specifically bred "breeds", but give groups tens of thousands of years to breed in near isolation and differences will occur. Being black, in itself, may not be any more genetically distinguishing than having ginger hair from a DNA point of view, but only one of those two groups is prone to sickle-cell anaemia. Why? If it was possible to decode genes, tracking their evolution and dispersal across the planet, and understanding how certain characteristics of genes may have helped or hindered man in that time, would that not be worth knowing? Or should we just say everyone is exactly the same because that's what modern society has decided we must say?
Not quite. I think it's interesting that so many imply that being less inteligent makes one less valuable or reversed, that more intelligent people are better people. When stated so clearly, most would say, "Oh no. It's wrong to make judgments like that." To which I have to wonder what makes a singular parent, husband, nearest next of kin, etc. more qualified to make a life or death decision than all of us put together.
Oh good Lord. The LAW does not make them more qualified. It just gives them permission. It's an acknowledgment of our collective sense.
My dictionary defines racism as: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. So, if you accept this definition it would appear that Dr. Watson is clearly a racist. This fact doesn’t diminish his Nobel prize winning work but it doesn’t reflect well on him personally in todays society. I have the same question about “testing” and its relevance to intelligence as some of the earlier posters. Is it possible to test a person’s ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills in a comprehensive manner? Is it possible that Dr. Watson would fail if he took a test regarding social and emotional intelligence written in the modern era? I am glad I took the time to read this thread. I found the posts interesting.
Close. Scientists should be given a lot of leeway in their opinions and pursuits. I do wonder how some of Darwin's statements would line up if he made them today.
Of course it is. You just have to change the definition of intelligence to that defined by the test. Such changes are not hard. It's how scientists define agility or speed. When they say someone is fast, scientists have an exact definition. But are faster people more valuable? Should they be favored in some way over other people? Possibly. Is he stating what he believes is a scientific fact or is he saying that smarter people are more valuable? I'm sure we could come up with a test for intelligence. I am intelligent enough to know that if we sampled the entire set of people, we would be able to find some correlation, no matter how small, to some inherited characteristics, maybe height. Maybe tall people tend to be smarter. Does that make small people less valuable?
You can't measure someone's potential to be fast. The speed at which a person can run is determined by many factors that go far beyond genetics. Very few people are able to run at their maximum potential speed. There is no way to measure a person's athletic potential. Why should that be different for intelligence?
I haven't seen that implication in this thread, but if you'd be kind enough to point it out, I'll be eternally grateful. What I have seen is two posts (including yours) which suggest via the "intellectually challenged people are just as good as Whites, so we must make certain that we don't treat them any differently" route that Watson's beliefs are somehow valid. Another thread, pilgrim.
Second post had the most important point. Science is taking our ignorance away. We are going to have to face the fact that some people have more valuable qualities than others. Some are taller, some are shorter, some are faster and some are slower. Some are on life support and cost a lot of money. Some aren't yet born. That doesn't make anyone more or less valuable.
one big difference is that sprinting is a particular physical characterist. Being a faster sprinter doesn't make somebody (or a group) necessarily physically better. Tests on marathon running, weight-lifting, suppleness, eyesight, etc are also physical characteristics and would probably give different results. Likewise "intelligence" is too broad a term. There are many different characteristics which could be deemed intelligence. Even the IQ test, accepted by many, is primarily about the ability to logically solve problems, and people still don't know how much of that is nature rather than nurture. How many though, would directly equate problem solving with intelligence? There does seem to be a strong correlation in western society, perhaps not in others, but it's still a narrow scope for defining intelligence.
For the record, I disagree with the guy. From my own little anecdotal evidence, I have no proof that blacks are any less intelligent than whites. But I can't say for sure, and I have no way of proving statistically or by any other means that I am correct in this assumption. But the whole idea that all humans are created exactly equal is false and it is not racist to say so. If there is some evolutionary difference in races, we should be able to identify it without political repercussion.
But you're going to go for it anyway. Good for you! I think you're an excellent example of natural characteristics overcoming environmental influences. It depends on what axis you measure the equality. It is very important that as science makes more and more discriminations between races, groups, etc. that we realize that there is no moral difference between one person and another. Smart races are no more valuable than fast races or races with a propensity for genetic disorders.
I have to address the sickle cell anemia/genetic disorder idea. It's not really relevant in this discussion. Those are cases in which a particular gene or gene mutation is found in one population at a higher rate than in others, or is found in only one popluation. It's not surprising that that would happen. It's no different from the unlikelihood of finding a blue-eyed Japanese person or a blonde Masai warrior. Those traits are determined by specific, identifiable genes. Intelligence is not determined by one factor. Even if we discount the obviously crucial environmental factors which influence intelligence, even if we could find a way to define what intelligence is, we still could not pinpoint one or even two genes which determine it. So genetic diseases are only relevant in so far as they provide a contrast to what Watson was saying. There are realms in which comparing the DNA of different groups can be fruitful, and there are areas in which it won't be. All that said, it's ridiculous to speculate about the innate differences among different groups of people when we can't measure or even define the characteristics in question. That's not scientific at all.
the proof is in the pudding - you can argue all you want, but the results don't lie. black people are better at certain sports. white people are better at certain other ones. different subsets of the human race have different anatomical makeup as dictated by differing genetics. the boxing point is irrelevant. just because there is no dominance from one group in one sport doesn't mean that there isn't in others. and the people dominating distance running are completely different from the people dominating sprinting, genetically speaking. how many ethopian sprinters have you seen...