PDA

View Full Version : Scientific Racism rears its ugly head, again!



filosofee
17th October 2007, 16:56
Unbelievable headline in The Independent this morning:

"Africans are less intelligent than Westerners"

This, by James Watson, joint Nobel Prize winner re DNA unravellment.


Coincidentally, last night I attended a lecture at the Science Museum's Dana Centre, Queen's Gate, South Kensington on "Scientific Racism: A history". There's a second "Is Science Colour Blind?" later this month. AND, Watson himself will speak at the same centre to an audience on Friday of this week, boy is he in for a rough time! (tickets are sold out).

This is what the newspaper is reporting that he said:


"Western policies towards African countries are wrongly based on the assumption that black people are as clever as their white counterparts when testing suggests the contrary."
What kind of testing is this then? Who has conducted this testing? Has the testing been evaluated for bias?

Apparently there is a gene responsible for creating differences in human intelligence and it will be found within a decade.

What is his definition of human intelligence? No doubt it is white-man centric.

Oh, and he's sexist too:


"People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty (through genetic engineering) I think it would be great."

Someone should tell Watson to take a look in the mirror; if genetic screening had been in place prior to his birth we may now have been relieved from reading such utter, non-scientific, non-empirical, baseless nonsensical bigotry.

161
17th October 2007, 17:28
well if u know the story behind watson and crick ... they stole data from other scientists on the way to describing the dna double helix...

even though they won the noble prize .. they aren't well respected in the scientific community because of their dubious ethics (or lack there off).

filosofee
17th October 2007, 17:44
well if u know the story behind watson and crick ... they stole data from other scientists on the way to describing the dna double helix...

even though they won the noble prize .. they aren't well respected in the scientific community because of their dubious ethics (or lack there off).


Crick is dead!

So disrespected is geneticist Watson, "one of the world's most eminent scientists" that he runs "one of America's leading scientific research institutions" (Independent, 17 october, 2007), and has been provided a platform to speak on Friday, at the Science Museum's Dana centre in London.

Face reality, a lot of scientists, albeit in the privacy of their invisible cloak, think as Watson does, on the issue of race and intelligence.

When such 'esteemed' people speak in this manner, it allows others, such as those Indians at a recent cricket match, to chant in a pejorative manner, as endured by Aussie Symonds.

Disgraceful.

JammydodgA
17th October 2007, 20:02
well if u know the story behind watson and crick ... they stole data from other scientists on the way to describing the dna double helix...

even though they won the noble prize .. they aren't well respected in the scientific community because of their dubious ethics (or lack there off).

Including a lot from a woman, funnily enough - Rosalind Franklin

MIG
18th October 2007, 00:26
Wasnt John Nash, a genius Scientistist, author of the Game Theory, played by Russell Crowe in "A Beautiful Mind", very racist as well ?

According to the Guardian



The sludge of the day is that the Nobel Prize-winning mathematician John Nash - portrayed by Crowe in A Beautiful Mind as a cuddly, unworldly, lovable nerd - has a dark side. He has been guilty of "Jew bashing" (Drudge's blunt phrase). Then, while serving in 1954 with the cold war think-tank the Rand Corporation, Nash was arrested doing a full-George Michael in a Santa Monica public lavatory. He was dismissed as a security risk.


Amazing when ALLAH grants a person with so much wisdom, HE sometimes takes away their ability to reason !

filosofee
18th October 2007, 00:51
It becomes funnier!


Pretty people earn more
The Journal of Economic Psychology has reported research from the University of California investigating a 'beauty premium' - those deemed the most attractive make 12% more money than those regarded as less good looking.

Apparently,


good looking people are seen as more helpful and co-operative, that they find it easier to generate co-operation among their co-workers. Attractive people, on average, are less selfish than moderately attractive people.


Good looks have what social scientists call the halo effect. Because someone is attractive, we assign many other positive attributes that have nothing to do with looks. (C.Kaputa, author of U R a Brand)

Now I know why I have such excessive persuasion skills!!!! :)))

Nakhuda
18th October 2007, 01:05
They "forgot" to mention how good athletes from African backgrounds are compared to white people.

tmac4real
18th October 2007, 01:11
I wonder then, why didn't they compare Asians to whites. The probably "should" have found that Asians are smarter.

filosofee
18th October 2007, 01:15
I wonder then, why didn't they compare Asians to whites. The probably "should" have found that Asians are smarter.

What's the agenda behind any 'measure', if it isn't to make the measurer feel better about themselves?

Last night's lecture raised the notion of 'fear' and suggested that it was/is a feature of the insecure who, through disproportionate power, subjugate and inflict cruelty on others.

JammydodgA
18th October 2007, 01:35
Pretty people earn more

:)) That's hilarious, I wouldn't call Alan Sugar, Bill Gates, Richard Branson etc 'pretty' lol

Nakhuda
18th October 2007, 01:40
I'd say pretty woman have a greater chance of better earnings! :P

tmac4real
18th October 2007, 01:53
:)) That's hilarious, I wouldn't call Alan Sugar, Bill Gates, Richard Branson etc 'pretty' lol

in general.

from_da_lost_dim3nsion
18th October 2007, 06:34
may be he has a point ! its all about the genes you know !

entralinks
18th October 2007, 07:19
Why not wait for some substantial proof before siding with either sides.

lahori
18th October 2007, 12:48
Africans may be less intelligent than their western counterparts but they are physically and athletically superior. Africans may also have bigger you know whats, is that also racism?

akram_rejuvinated
18th October 2007, 13:46
well if u know the story behind watson and crick ... they stole data from other scientists on the way to describing the dna double helix...

even though they won the noble prize .. they aren't well respected in the scientific community because of their dubious ethics (or lack there off).
pull that out of which hole? i met watson at my university last year and he is more humble than a tree and one of the most polite individuals i have ever met.

as for the research, there is truth to that. if you plot the achievement curves of the various races, caucassians lead the african americans by a decent margin. this is not scientific racism, its documentation of capabilities and ability which are often influenced by access to education and teaching resources not to mention the environment outside the school.

filosofee
18th October 2007, 19:38
:)) That's hilarious, I wouldn't call Alan Sugar, Bill Gates, Richard Branson etc 'pretty' lol


I think you'll find that the research relates to employees, not employers, whose beastly charmlessness matters not! :)))

filosofee
18th October 2007, 19:43
i met watson at my university last year and he is more humble than a tree and one of the most polite individuals i have ever met.

Being a bigot does not preclude being courteous



as for the research, there is truth to that. if you plot the achievement curves of the various races, caucassians lead the african americans by a decent margin. this is not scientific racism, its documentation of capabilities and ability which are often influenced by access to education and teaching resources not to mention the environment outside the school.

Exactly

It is scientific bias, of sorts, if you overlook / ignore opportunities afforded to one group as opposed to the other.

akram_rejuvinated
18th October 2007, 19:52
Being a bigot does not preclude being courteous



Exactly

It is scientific bias, of sorts, if you overlook / ignore opportunities afforded to one group as opposed to the other.
i bigot? this i would like to hear.

and the observation is not scientific bias. infact, it is merely reiterating the need for education reform in the united states where a culture of recurssion is leading to a signficant brain drain due to the loss of any credible academic contribution from a third of the population due to the lack of a proper education infrastructure for inner city schools.

filosofee
18th October 2007, 20:04
i bigot? this i would like to hear.

Your utterances do not make sense.



and the observation is not scientific bias. infact, it is merely reiterating the need for education reform in the united states where a culture of recurssion is leading to a signficant brain drain due to the loss of any credible academic contribution from a third of the population due to the lack of a proper education infrastructure for inner city schools.

You're right, it is not 'scientific' because that would require empirical evidence for or against. You are introducing a problem of the US, whereas Watson is espousing his bias towards African countries and their black population:


"Western policies towards African countries are wrongly based on the assumption that black people are as clever as their white counterparts when testing suggests the contrary." (as quoted in The Independent, British newspaper, 17 October, 2007)

midwicket
18th October 2007, 20:59
It's funny people like Watson don't take the argument to its conclusion. For example, east Asians like Chinese/Japanese do better than white Americans on IQ tests. It's just a case of cultural importance given to education. But the silence from race based proponents of IQ is telling.

Joseph K.
18th October 2007, 21:37
How can you compare someone who never had sufficient books, had to work his a*** off to support his family, had to combat infections and diseases throughout his predictably shorter life and had to live under religious and social taboos all his life with someone who is over-pampered all his life, is studying in nicely equipped schools while his junk-food-fed-fat-ar** could not be bothered by a worry in the whole world. The comparison is flawed, the data unreliable. We are comparing oranges with apples here. Biology has a long history of being essentialist. But most sciences are essentialist when they should be cultivating doubt and further inquiry, people jump to conclusions in order to get their papers published.

I am appalled by the number of drop-outs and muckers in the west in spite of all the money spent on education. As an individual, an average Briton of white descent is academically challenged and has an attention-span of a goldfish. Not all of them are Stephen Hawkings, you know. Most of them end up on the street. Given similar opportunities, the foreigners and 1st generation immigrants show more remarkable academic prowess.

from_da_lost_dim3nsion
19th October 2007, 06:37
How can you compare someone who never had sufficient books, had to work his a*** off to support his family, had to combat infections and diseases throughout his predictably shorter life and had to live under religious and social taboos all his life with someone who is over-pampered all his life, is studying in nicely equipped schools while his junk-food-fed-fat-ar** could not be bothered by a worry in the whole world. The comparison is flawed, the data unreliable. We are comparing oranges with apples here. Biology has a long history of being essentialist. But most sciences are essentialist when they should be cultivating doubt and further inquiry, people jump to conclusions in order to get their papers published.

I am appalled by the number of drop-outs and muckers in the west in spite of all the money spent on education. As an individual, an average Briton of white descent is academically challenged and has an attention-span of a goldfish. Not all of them are Stephen Hawkings, you know. Most of them end up on the street. Given similar opportunities, the foreigners and 1st generation immigrants show more remarkable academic prowess.


you could say that about the black people living in africa and all but whats the excuse for the ones that were born and raised in the US and been here for generations?

madaboutlfc
19th October 2007, 09:37
Africans may be less intelligent than their western counterparts but they are physically and athletically superior. Africans may also have bigger you know whats, is that also racism?
these are facts..

Joseph K.
19th October 2007, 11:42
you could say that about the black people living in africa and all but whats the excuse for the ones that were born and raised in the US and been here for generations?


Social inequality.

filosofee
19th October 2007, 16:08
Watson lecture, scheduled for tonight at the Science Museum's Dana Centre, has been cancelled:



The Science Museum last night cancelled a talk by Nobel Prize winning scientist Dr James Watson after he was accused of making “racist” comments implying Africans were not as intelligent as whites.

Dr Watson was also quoted as saying that while he hoped all races were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.



Watson

has been roundly condemned for 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”.

and


The 79-year-old American was due to talk at the Science Museum’s Dana Centre on Friday but last night a spokesman said Dr Watson’s comments had gone “beyond the point of acceptable debate”.

He announced the Musuem was cancelling the sold-out talk as a result.

On Tuesday night the Dana Centre had coincidentally hosted a debate entitled “Scientific Racism: A history”.


Dr Watson, who flew into Britain to promote a new book, has also provoked uproar by saying the assumption that different racial groups shared “equal powers of reason” was backed by “no firm reason”.



Neourobiologist Prof Steven Rose of the Open University, a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said such “racist” comments were also “genetic nonsense”. :


“Making statements of that sort is certainly a great day for the British National Party but it’s a sad day for scientists and racial harmony.”

He said: “He doesn’t need to do it. He had a distinguished reputation as a molecular biologist and he should keep out of areas in which he is not well qualified.”

No evidence that claimed to find people of African descent were less intelligent than Europeans or other racial groups had stood up to scientific scrutiny, he stressed.

and:


Koku Adomdza, director of the black equality pressure group The 1990 Trust, labelled Dr Watson a “complete dinosaur” and pressed him to apologise to “Africa and all people of African origin”.

He said: “Dr Watson is really a relic of the oldest stock and deserves to be made to account for his extremely offensive and ignorant remarks.

“His very poisonously racist opinions put students and the unsuspecting public at serious risk.”

from Telegraph on-line: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/17/nwatson217.xml

filosofee
19th October 2007, 21:07
The BNP hail DNA pioneer James Watson as "The New Galileo"


18th October 2007

News article filed by BNP news team


Yesterday’s Independent newspaper carried a front page “Fury at DNA pioneer’s theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners”

It went on “Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: “All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really.”

In the heavily slanted piece on the Nobel Prize Winner Professor James Watson the predictable recourse of slamming any mention of racial differences as “scientific racism” does not in any way alter the outcome of IQ testing over the past fifty years showing, as it does, an unalterable disparity of about 16 points in the intelligence rating of whites and blacks.

The politicians and the politically inspired biologists such as Steven Rose are all of the same Marxist, egalitarian mould as Messrs Kamin, Gould and Lewontin, the now discredited rearguard of that contradiction, Marxian biology. This latter band of political worthies is the current succession to Trofim Lysenko, the Soviet biologist who declared Mendelian genetics to be a capitalist conspiracy. These politically inspired “scientists” react fearfully against evidence which mortally threatens their ideology.

Those who object so virulently against the work of Murray, Herrenstein, Lynn, Vanhanan, Jensen, Shockley and Eysenck are simply denying the facts of science and stand in the same position as those Catholic theologians who offered Galileo the choice of recantation or the stake.

Today Prof. Watson learned that London's Science Museum has cancelled his planned talk tomorrow.

Sell-out visit cancelled

The 79-year-old geneticist said he hoped that everyone was equal but countered that "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."

The Science Museum, which had been due to host Watson on a visit to Britain publicising his latest book, said this was unacceptable.

"We know that eminent scientists can sometimes say things that cause controversy and the Science Museum does not shy away from debating controversial topics," it said in a statement.

"However we feel that Dr Watson has gone beyond the point of acceptable debate and we are, as a result, cancelling his talk."

Tickets for the talk had been sold out.

Readers are invited to ask the Science Museum to provide an explanation for their role in the new Inquisition.


from here:
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1786



I feel that the Science Museum were wrong to cancel Nobel Prize winner James Watson's talk (scheduled to have taken place tonight at the Dana Centre). He should have been allowed to speak, and, if asked, to defend his ideas on race and intelligence (though he has admitted that there is "no scientific basis" for his espoused belief that Africans are genetically inferior

aussie-pak
19th October 2007, 21:11
The 79-year-old geneticist said he hoped that everyone was equal but countered that "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."

WTH? what kind of sick person would actually say something like this in public? pfft. he has degraded himself and his credentials with that comment.

filosofee
19th October 2007, 21:25
WTH? what kind of sick person would actually say something like this in public? pfft. he has degraded himself and his credentials with that comment.


Fact is we are NOT equal.

Everyone has talent in different areas. Consider twins who are genetically identical and have exactly the same environment (unless split somewhere along their lives) but may have completed different talents, skilled in different areas.

But I am in accord with your disgust at Watson's comment on black employees, inferring that either they don't work as hard as their non-black colleagues or if they do perform less well. Disgraceful.

from_da_lost_dim3nsion
20th October 2007, 03:54
Social inequality.
but the Mexicans have it even worse, but they try to work their way out of the so called social inequality !

Geordie Ahmed
21st October 2007, 10:57
The BNP hail DNA pioneer James Watson as "The New Galileo"




from here:
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1786



I feel that the Science Museum were wrong to cancel Nobel Prize winner James Watson's talk (scheduled to have taken place tonight at the Dana Centre). He should have been allowed to speak, and, if asked, to defend his ideas on race and intelligence (though he has admitted that there is "no scientific basis" for his espoused belief that Africans are genetically inferior

Well he was scheduled to speak here tomorrow (actually today, didnt realise that was the time :O ) BUT it was cancelled as he had to return to the US

http://www.life.org.uk/about/press/articles/42

filosofee
21st October 2007, 22:08
Well he was scheduled to speak here tomorrow (actually today, didnt realise that was the time :O ) BUT it was cancelled as he had to return to the US

http://www.life.org.uk/about/press/articles/42


Ah, but in this instance, it is Watson who returned to the US before fulfilling his tour date:


The Centre for Life made the decision to go ahead with the interview, despite the cancellation of his planned appearance at London’s Science Museum.


from your source.

Somali Pirate
21st October 2007, 22:37
How many times have we heard the same rehashed thing over the years?

Watson and his supporters should just get over it. Using non uniform stats with varying conditions to make a widespread assumption and then terming it as a scientific fact is just pathetic.

I told a pal at work about this at work and he said, mate i don't care if i am inferior to you as long as i have the bigger you know what. May be that's the root angst of it all lol

filosofee
21st October 2007, 22:45
Watson and his supporters should just get over it. Using non uniform stats with varying conditions to make a widespread assumption and then terming it as a scientific fact is just pathetic.




I'm not sure that Watson is engaged in any intelligence testing. From his comments, it's his opinion that there is a correlation between race and intelligence. He may be using NOBEL PRIZE winners as a measure and perhaps most of them are white or Chinese.

He is pointing to Africa but he is overlooking the fact that many Africans have no access to clean running water, have little, or no food let alone access to education.

Joseph K.
21st October 2007, 22:56
but the Mexicans have it even worse, but they try to work their way out of the so called social inequality !

Talking about immigrants? Social inequality can paralyse generations. Visit a council estate and see white kids doing what we are accusing black people of.

filosofee
30th October 2007, 22:17
"Is Science Colour Blind?" tonight's talk, second in the series for Black History month, at London's Science Museum Dana centre. Will report on it later in the week.


ps here at the centre already, using their, free internet access.