Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Watson is correct, however, in the era of political correctness, one can no longer speak the truth
I wonder what the world would be like, had it not been for Watson and Crick?
Well, Franklin and the other Brits and Americans would have simply published the same data a few months later.
"Crucial to their discovery were the experimental data collected at King's College London — mainly by Rosalind Franklin, under the supervision of Maurice Wilkins"
Many of you have a view of history and science as if one person woke up in the morning and had an amazing deduction. Not so. It was studied to death and Rosalind took pictures of it. They knew all about it and what it did and even very close on the shape.
All they were doing was debating hot to interpret the Helix - was it single, double, were the phosphates located on the outside, etc.???
Believe me, if Watson had never existed we'd be in the exact same place we are now. T
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,166 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19460
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
Well, Franklin and the other Brits and Americans would have simply published the same data a few months later.
"Crucial to their discovery were the experimental data collected at King's College London — mainly by Rosalind Franklin, under the supervision of Maurice Wilkins"
Many of you have a view of history and science as if one person woke up in the morning and had an amazing deduction. Not so. It was studied to death and Rosalind took pictures of it. They knew all about it and what it did and even very close on the shape.
All they were doing was debating hot to interpret the Helix - was it single, double, were the phosphates located on the outside, etc.???
Believe me, if Watson had never existed we'd be in the exact same place we are now. T
It's a shame Franklin, Gosling and New Zealander Wilkins weren't included in the prize.
Sayng that some Universities have named facilities after Franklin, and have awarded her posthumous awards.
Sadly Franklin died of Ovarian cancer aged just 37.
In terms of Crick and Watson I know more about Crick than Watson, and Crick was by all accounts a very clever and likeable man, and the late Nuerologist Oliver Sacks writes fondly of him in some of his works.
Last edited by Brave New World; 01-15-2019 at 06:43 AM..
Why on earth should people not have political equality or inalienable rights based on IQ?
Good question. Logically, it should not. But racism is not driven by logic and, these days, it is not generally as overt as it was in the 19th century. The dangers posed by Watson's claims are mostly of a social nature. Even when laws promote equality, this technical equality rarely translates very well into actual equality for minorities. Implicit biases, racist attitudes, etc., have an overwhelming impact on the day-to-day realities of life for minorities. Equality under the law is foundational and absolutely essential, but it is not sufficient for avoiding grossly unfair treatment. Watson's claims will probably never have any impact on "equal rights" in an overt legal sense, but they can play a role in sustaining implicit biases and racism.
From what I can tell, Watson's claims are not very well supported by the preponderance of actual scientific data (notice that on in this thread, so far, no one has even attempted to post credible evidence supporting Watson's view) but, nevertheless, people who want to sustain white privilege will use Watson's reputation as a Nobel Prize winner to justify their raciest views. We can clearly see, in this thread, that a lot of people are happy to simply assume that the scientific data supports whatever political position they want it to support, so long as they can point to one scientist who supports their view. This is the role plays by Watson in this thread.
The African continent (and Middle East region) is the poster boy for dysfunctional but there’s plenty of poor/corrupt Eastern European countries and 3rd world Spanish countries.
Every “race” pretty much has its “bad country.”
Back on topic. Is IQ genetic? Ofcourse it is. Obama and Ben Carson have much higher IQs than the humbled places they come from. Luckily, we live in a country where even if you don’t have the IQ of a lawyer or neurosurgeon, you can still live a successful productive life.
The issue is when people put “race” into it. The color of your skin won’t decide if you get locked behind bars for commiting a crime or you get 6 figures for being a computer scientist. It’s the IQ in your brain that will largely decide that.
There are no third world European countries. There are no Europeans still living in tribes hunting with spears. All you have to do is look at a map of GDP and human development index.
The term "benchmark for science" is what we would deem to be science-ese. It sounds like it makes sense, but in reality its utter nonsense. Thus, any point that you are attempting to make using it is likely to be nonsense.
This is the point that you are trying to make in a single short paragraph? Good luck. IQ testing is perfectly valid. To state that it isn't only identifies you as not knowing how simple standardized testing works, along with outcome studies (which are extremely simple, and account for external variables outside of intelligence). And that testing science and its proven outcome studies, as related to IQ testing, doesn't even touch IQ science. In other words, you'd have to refute testing science as a broader discipline (which is used across many disciples for decades), and the scientific method itself to begin to challenge IQ testing validity. And then you'd still have the hurdle of challenging IQ science itself. As your kind fails to ever properly grasp, you will have no success in this from simply quoting apoplectic twitter SJW's and politically interested NYT journalists.
No it doesn't.
What a tired line, which has been refuted an infinitum. So called cultural biases can be and have been more than well controlled for in studies. This has even a constant complaint from non-scientists. Did you think that it wouldn't be controlled for? Have you taken an IQ test? Valid tests exist for simple pattern recognition, which virtually no one has any cultural bias for nor can they practice for it. The studies come out the same. Moreover, the studies come out the same across different groups that have been brought up in a broader culture that eradicates any possible significant cultural variable. You are merely repeating well-defeated objections in the hope that you will be the last one to speak. Yawn.
That sounds like the poem of someone with barely more than a high school education (g: no science education to speak of). Its more science-ese, but this time worse than the last.
What IQ tests do measure is the type of intelligence that is scientifically correlated to most of the outcomes that matter for the individual and society. Again, see my prior explanation about those correlated outcomes.
/discussion.
IQ tests are culturally biased. It stands to reason that there would be a correlation between test scores and outcomes within a society. Such a correlation actually supports the idea of cultural bias.
And "that sounds like the poem of someone with barely more than a high-school education" is nonsensical. Poem???? I think if you are engaging in personal attacks (and the remark about a high-school education is certainly a personal attack), you should do so with a better strategy.
IQ tests are measures of certain skills. But not of "intelligence". "Intelligence" embraces a huge range of abilities, but most importantly it's about thinking outside of the box, about non-conformity, and leaps of insight. IQ tests do not test for those things. Which is not to say that IQ tests have no value. What they do measure is important, and they do find correlations beyond societal expectations. The decline in scores when impairment of hearing is involved, the correlation between math ability and musical ability, what happens when children are exposed to high levels of lead, these are just some of the interesting things that have come from the study of IQ tests. IQ tests are valuable for scientific research, but Dr Watson's beliefs about race and intelligence are not scientific, because he does not understand the inherent cultural bias in the tests, as evidently you do not, either.
This is why I have no trust in "science" anymore. It is all governed by PC culture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by subaru5555
That...literally makes no sense. The two concepts have nothing to do with each other, whatsoever....
That is correct, but for the masses who have lost touch with science, or never learned any science, they have no way to tell the difference.
Those types of people would make MUCH better decisions if they believed science over politics, because politics is so rife with so much more corruption.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
