Log in

View Full Version : Is this Nobel Prize winner a racist?



Devastatin Dave
17/10/07, 03:53
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece
Is he? Or is there truth to his research? If there is truth to this study, how do you think this could effect race relations? And one final question, if something is "true" is it racist?

KukriKhan
17/10/07, 04:06
His Nobel was in 1962, for work absolutely unrelated to comparative racial intelligence abilities. He's a doddering 79 now. What he thinks about anything other than DNA structure... say the price of rice in Bangladore, is as relevantly authoritative as any opinion you or I hold.

I might buy him a beer in the pub, just to hear his rant; but in the end, I'd wrap his non-DNA opinions in tomorrow's fish-paper, along with those other "I used to be somebody" fellas.

Devastatin Dave
17/10/07, 04:14
I might buy him a beer in the pub,
You'd buy a racist a beer? :no:

KukriKhan
17/10/07, 04:15
Hell, I'd buy a headless chicken a beer, just to see him dance.

Devastatin Dave
17/10/07, 04:17
Hell, I'd buy a headless chicken a beer, just to see him dance.
You'd give beer to a poor dying chicken to prolong its suffering for your own amusement?:no:



























Sorry, I just can't help myself.:beam:

KukriKhan
17/10/07, 04:21
o'Course. PETA be damned. Chickens were put on this earth for our sustenance and amusement.

Crazed Rabbit
17/10/07, 06:42
Gee, Kukri, that seems a bit speciest.

~;p

Anyways, Dr. Watson's history suggest there is more than objective science at play in his announcement.

CR

Ja'chyra
17/10/07, 09:21
It's not racist if it's true, I'm just not sure if it's true or not.

Anyway, isn't he entitled to his opinion, would people be complaining if he said that Scots weren't as intelligent as the English? I doubt it, most of us can't read :laugh4:

naut
17/10/07, 09:58
I might buy him a beer in the pub, just to hear his rant; but in the end, I'd wrap his non-DNA opinions in tomorrow's fish-paper, along with those other "I used to be somebody" fellas.
What he said.

Husar
17/10/07, 12:00
Anyway, isn't he entitled to his opinion, would people be complaining if he said that Scots weren't as intelligent as the English? I doubt it, most of us can't read :laugh4:
:laugh4:

It always depends on what you see as intelligence.
Most IQ tests seem to include mathematical stuff, now if you go to some african tribe that has never seen a school and give them some mathematical questions, I guess they'd fail. But to me that doesn't make them necessarily less intelligent, if you test their hunting skills with a spear vs your own and rate that as IQ they'll probably come out on top. :dizzy2:

Spino
17/10/07, 16:20
His Nobel was in 1962, for work absolutely unrelated to comparative racial intelligence abilities. He's a doddering 79 now. What he thinks about anything other than DNA structure... say the price of rice in Bangladore, is as relevantly authoritative as any opinion you or I hold.

I might buy him a beer in the pub, just to hear his rant; but in the end, I'd wrap his non-DNA opinions in tomorrow's fish-paper, along with those other "I used to be somebody" fellas.

Well this article certainly pushed somebody's button... Do you have any proof Watson is a "doddering 79" now? I'd love to see copies of his medical records citing senility or other similarly debilitating ailments. Methinks if Watson said something that catered to your own beliefs in this area you'd probably be singing his praises right now.

As far as I'm concerned all Watson did was make a few offhand remarks that reminded people of the 800 lb gorilla that refuses to leave the room...

CrossLOPER
17/10/07, 19:44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wu9-GmOmKs

Viking
17/10/07, 20:08
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wu9-GmOmKs

Posting that link is plain ridiculous. Stupid people appear in every skin colour, and it should not be necessary to point out. :dizzy2:

CrossLOPER
17/10/07, 22:11
Posting that link is plain ridiculous. Stupid people appear in every skin colour, and it should not be necessary to point out. :dizzy2:
I know. I'm making fun of this thread, or more the reason it was posted.

The Wizard
17/10/07, 22:37
Call me cruel and criminal, but I LOL'd at that video. Hard, too.

Proletariat
17/10/07, 23:08
That video's an advertisement for Britain's pro-gun lobby. It has to be.

CrossLOPER
18/10/07, 00:40
It's been remove, unfortunately.

Special bonus: I didn't save it. I'm glad you guys liked it, though.:beam:

ajaxfetish
18/10/07, 00:55
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece
Is he? Or is there truth to his research? If there is truth to this study, how do you think this could effect race relations? And one final question, if something is "true" is it racist?
I wouldn't be surprised. He's openly sexist. You can look up info on Rosalind Franklin to see who probably should have been the fourth name on that Nobel Prize.

Ajax

Fragony
18/10/07, 08:20
Technically speaking, yeah this would be racist. Study's like this are useless, only makes people feel bad about theirselves and you can't make any policy out of it in the first place because you can't discriminate on race.

Husar
18/10/07, 13:31
That video's an advertisement for Britain's pro-gun lobby. It has to be.
I have to agree though I'd prefer to beat them with my own hands. :boxing:

Louis VI the Fat
18/10/07, 15:44
Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices. I think most of the scientific community would not touch this subject with a ten foot pole. Unless they are 79, laureated already and do not have to fear for their career.

It was safer for scientists in the 15th century to claim the earth was not the centre of the universe than it is in the 21st to ask basic questions about human genetics.


Edit: Much safer for your career, infact. What's taboo must remain taboo and can not be the subject of scientific scrutiny:


Science Museum cancels talk by Watson after 'racist' comments

A speaking tour by the DNA pioneer James Watson was thrown into chaos last night when one of Britain's most high-profile scientific institutions announced it was cancelling a planned sell-out appearance.

The Science Museum in London said Dr Watson had gone "beyond the point of acceptable debate" during an interview this weekend in which he claimed black people were less intelligent than their white counterparts.
Linky (http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3070583.ece)

The Wizard
18/10/07, 16:51
Well, you gotta admit two things: first, he has nothing to back a claim that, if true, would lead to very far-reaching consequences, and second (connected to the first), it would give your friendly neighborhood racist some very, very easy and surefire arguments for his policies. Why not send them Blacks back to the cotton fields? They're better suited to that than an office job, after all!

Luckily, his claim is empty and devoid of proper support. In which case the argument for viewing his statement in the light of a more unreasoned, shady motivation greatly wins in strength.

Viking
18/10/07, 18:30
He has to be a racist anyway to come with such bald claims and no real data to back it up with, LOL.
And no, no such "scientifical" results would really matter as there is no such "African race". Africa is a huge continent with enormous genetical variation.

ShadesPanther
18/10/07, 18:49
I wouldn't be surprised. He's openly sexist. You can look up info on Rosalind Franklin to see who probably should have been the fourth name on that Nobel Prize.

Ajax


Yes but dead people can't be given the Nobel Prize. She died 3 years before it was given.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
18/10/07, 20:31
He has to be a racist anyway to come with such bald claims and no real data to back it up with, LOL.
And no, no such "scientifical" results would really matter as there is no such "African race". Africa is a huge continent with enormous genetical variation.

Why does he have to be a racist to say that? At the end of the day no one has come up with a completely satisfactory reason for why Europeans rule the world (and they do, largely). He might be right, he probably isn't, but ignoring him out of turn is prejudice in its own right.

Louis VI the Fat
18/10/07, 21:00
Well, you gotta admit two things: first, he has nothing to back a claim that, if true, would lead to very far-reaching consequences, and second (connected to the first), it would give your friendly neighborhood racist some very, very easy and surefire arguments for his policies. I shall gladly admit the first point of the first point. Alas, genetics is as of now almost the sole preserve of isolated semi-intellectuals, hate-mongerers and pseudo-science. Not much is known.
Why not turn it into real science, and counter fears and hatred with that?
There is a clear taboo, out of fear for what may be found. Which, since my two points are similarly connected like yours, that is, through the second point of the first point, I think is -apart from going against the spirit of open scientific endeavor - not necessary:

Because on the second point - would it matter? Would it really bolster racism? Some populations are more prone to certain physical diseases than others. This much is clear now. Yet, this didn't lead to the feared dystopia of calls for eugenics and inhumane health insurance policies.
So what if it turns out that the human brain has not, through an as of yet undiscovered mysterious natural force, been exempt from evolutionary forces ever since an exact moment 60.000 years ago? Would it really matter much if it turned out that mental aspects, like physical aspects, are clustered phenomena?

Maybe I am just not so panicky about all this because I really can't see why more knowledge is more dangerous than less knowledge.

InsaneApache
18/10/07, 21:27
Is this Nobel Prize winner a racist?

Yes.

KukriKhan
18/10/07, 21:56
Well this article certainly pushed somebody's button... Do you have any proof Watson is a "doddering 79" now? I'd love to see copies of his medical records citing senility or other similarly debilitating ailments. Methinks if Watson said something that catered to your own beliefs in this area you'd probably be singing his praises right now.

As far as I'm concerned all Watson did was make a few offhand remarks that reminded people of the 800 lb gorilla that refuses to leave the room...

I guess I was unclear. "Buy him a beer", I say - let him speak. I just would not attach extra weight to his out-of-his-field-of-expertise views solely because of his work 40+ years ago. Any more than I would attach extra weight to Dick Cheney's views on Aussie-rules footy.

If he's a racist with wacky theories of racial superiority, that will be obvious in the clear light of day. If he has serious science behind his views, the sanitizing rays of free speech will reveal that also. That's gonna be a hard case for him to present, and I'm not sure he's up to it. But, heck, let him speak.

If everyone else turns him down, someone invite him here. We'll listen.

AntiochusIII
18/10/07, 22:18
At the end of the day no one has come up with a completely satisfactory reason for why Europeans rule the world (and they do, largely).And just why do we need a reason anyway? Some people over in the EB subforum are debating about the whole rise of Rome thingy (provoked by the latest series of complaints about legionaries and somesuch) and the consensus is that Rome's rise is far from infallible reason or some ridiculous inherent superiority.

Luck, geography, and a whole bunch of other factors having nothing to do with white smarter than black works fine for me. :yes:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
18/10/07, 23:19
And just why do we need a reason anyway? Some people over in the EB subforum are debating about the whole rise of Rome thingy (provoked by the latest series of complaints about legionaries and somesuch) and the consensus is that Rome's rise is far from infallible reason or some ridiculous inherent superiority.

Luck, geography, and a whole bunch of other factors having nothing to do with white smarter than black works fine for me. :yes:

Oh well done, I'm a racist.

Look, all I'm saying is that one possible explanation is that European brains work differently to African brains, given that certain diseases are pretty much the exclusive province of certain ethnic groups it's entirely possible that selection has produced brains that work in different ways.

The idea that there is no variation between humans in different places is obviously wrong, otherwise some of us would not have evolved lighter skin for colder climes.

I'm not saying it is true but I see no evidence to prove it isn't so I'm open to the possibility.

Seamus Fermanagh
19/10/07, 01:16
Sex:

Work in neurobiology has confirmed that men and women think "differently" at an electrochemical level.

Psychology and aptitude testing have demonstrated for years that both sexes tend toward certain intellectual strengths and weaknesses.

Caveats:

There are fairly sizeable minorities who run trend toward the other sex's norm within each sex.

There has been no reliable data generated to demonstrate that their is a practical qualitative difference in intellectual ability.


Vis-a-vis Race:

Does race/ethnicity also carry with it the potential for difference electrochimically? Of course. I suspect that the same caveats as above would also apply here.

Has any reliable data demonstrated a qualitative difference in capability? I've not read any.

Viking
19/10/07, 15:44
Why does he have to be a racist to say that? At the end of the day no one has come up with a completely satisfactory reason for why Europeans rule the world (and they do, largely). He might be right, he probably isn't, but ignoring him out of turn is prejudice in its own right.


Oh, there are several possbile reasons...one could say culture, geography or climate. And look, the argument can be turned against you; civilization did not first see day light in Europe, but in Mesopotamia. Science was founded in ancient Greece and not magically all over Europe at the same time. Who's ruling the world today is pretty random; and certainly what race you are should have minimal impact on the chance of creating empires.

Fragony
19/10/07, 16:11
Oh, there are several possbile reasons...one could say culture, geography or climate. And look, the argument can be turned against you; civilization did not first see day light in Europe, but in Mesopotamia. Science was founded in ancient Greece and not magically all over Europe at the same time. Who's ruling the world today is pretty random; and certainly what race you are should have minimal impact on the chance of creating empires.

None of all that matter really, you can only be sure you compare different ethnicities brought up in the same enviroment. Otherwise you are comparing cultures. I think it's best to look for data in the upper classes of a big multicultural country, like America or Canada for example. But again we don't really need this sort of knowlegde and we sure as hell can't use it. Personally I suspect there are differences, which would make sense because we all evolved in different parts of the world, but we all seem to have the absolutily incredible ability to adjust.

Viking
19/10/07, 16:26
None of all that matter really, you can only be sure you compare different ethnicities brought up in the same enviroment. Otherwise you are comparing cultures. I think it's best to look for data in the upper classes of a big multicultural country, like America or Canada for example. But again we don't really need this sort of knowlegde and we sure as hell can't use it. Personally I suspect there are differences, which would make sense because we all evolved in different parts of the world, but we all seem to have the absolutily incredible ability to adjust.

In Canada and USA prejudices could indeed have an impact on the results. Logically there would be differences in average IQ if you could compare the differente "races", they could be major differences for what we know, africans could be smarter than western people for what we know (say, more hair over bigger brain in colder climates?); but since we do not really know anything factually about this, it turns out this Nobel Prize winner is a racist.

HoreTore
19/10/07, 16:38
When did "black" become a single group of people? And when did "white" become one?

I'm white, and so are the russkies in the east and the brits in the west. But I can still easily distinguish between a brit, a norwegian and a russkie, just as I'm quite sure that a Nigerian can tell the difference between someone from Sudan and someone from Congo.

If we assume that there is an intelligence difference, why shouldn't there also be a difference between a brit and a russian, or a sudanese and a nigerian, just as there would be a difference between a nigerian and a brit?

Viking
19/10/07, 16:46
Yep, there is in fact genetical varation in Africa also. Just check out masai and pygmy. ~;)

Fragony
19/10/07, 16:49
When did "black" become a single group of people? And when did "white" become one?

Well since we developed in different way, take the plane and try to reason with the mosquito's. You are most likely to die and that is because you didn't evolve to be in such a place. If you think otherwise I'll leave that to evolution ~;)


I'm white, and so are the russkies in the east and the brits in the west. But I can still easily distinguish between a brit, a norwegian and a russkie, just as I'm quite sure that a Nigerian can tell the difference between someone from Sudan and someone from Congo.

I have little trouble seeing the difference betweena ruskiee a scandinavian and an englishmen really, they could as well carry a sign.

HoreTore
19/10/07, 17:45
Well since we developed in different way, take the plane and try to reason with the mosquito's. You are most likely to die and that is because you didn't evolve to be in such a place. If you think otherwise I'll leave that to evolution ~;)

The point is that "white people" didn't evolve in the same place, and neither did "black people". Or would you say that Sahara is about the same climate as the jungles? Northern Scandinavia is basically the same as Italy? Heck, even the climate in britain is very different from how it is on this side of the north sea...

Husar
19/10/07, 18:01
My idea is that black people are black because they live in sunny countries, when I lay down in the sun I'll become more or less black, maybe if I do it in Africa and tell my son to do it everyday as well and he tells his son to do it everyday and so on, one day one of my grandsons will be born with a darker skin etc and so on. Maybe I'm completely wrong but that's the way I see it and afaik intelligence is partly developed in your early years, that means if your parents neglect you you are likely to end up less intelligent, that's what I read somewhere somewhen. And like I said before, intelligence is not some universal standard so it can be hard to measure, some people call me intelligent but since I'm lazy my grades don't reflect that. You could however say I'm stupid because an intelligent person would learn more. :sweatdrop:

So in the end it all comes down to this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dYpnd_9TFs) (I might use that more often from now on, be warned! ~D ).

Fragony
19/10/07, 18:02
The point is that "white people" didn't evolve in the same place, and neither did "black people". Or would you say that Sahara is about the same climate as the jungles? Northern Scandinavia is basically the same as Italy? Heck, even the climate in britain is very different from how it is on this side of the north sea...

Well yes that is whi I said these things should be handled scientifically, being sure that the date is reliable. Don't make this a moral issue when it is not, and where you just take offence because it isn't in concert with your morals, racism is no more then the racial theories if you insist on keeping it scienticilally. So we are all the same thing developing in entire different parts of the world without being in any way different, is that a religion you have there by any chance?

HoreTore
19/10/07, 18:27
Well yes that is whi I said these things should be handled scientifically, being sure that the date is reliable. Don't make this a moral issue when it is not, and where you just take offence because it isn't in concert with your morals, racism is no more then the racial theories if you insist on keeping it scienticilally. So we are all the same thing developing in entire different parts of the world without being in any way different, is that a religion you have there by any chance?

No, no, no... My point was about the use of the terms "black" and "white" in this context. White people didn't evolve in the same place and neither did black people, so why should all white people be the same and all black people the same, and the only difference is between a black and a white person?

Fragony
19/10/07, 18:52
so why should all white people be the same and all black people the same, and the only difference is between a black and a white person?

You tell me, I am not the one attributing anything to anyone I simply don't care. Could be true that it is true, I think it means nothing nonetheless. You do it seems, I just don't understand why, besides the blissfull arronagance of being right it has little appeal.

HoreTore
19/10/07, 19:02
You tell me, I am not the one attributing anything to anyone I simply don't care. Could be true that it is true, I think it means nothing nonetheless.

I've never said that you do ~;)


You do it seems, I just don't understand why, besides the blissfull arronagance of being right it has little appeal.

And no, I don't care either... And I've only talked about the OP, not you ~;)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
19/10/07, 23:04
My idea is that black people are black because they live in sunny countries, when I lay down in the sun I'll become more or less black, maybe if I do it in Africa and tell my son to do it everyday as well and he tells his son to do it everyday and so on, one day one of my grandsons will be born with a darker skin etc and so on. Maybe I'm completely wrong but that's the way I see it and afaik intelligence is partly developed in your early years, that means if your parents neglect you you are likely to end up less intelligent, that's what I read somewhere somewhen. And like I said before, intelligence is not some universal standard so it can be hard to measure, some people call me intelligent but since I'm lazy my grades don't reflect that. You could however say I'm stupid because an intelligent person would learn more. :sweatdrop:

So in the end it all comes down to this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dYpnd_9TFs) (I might use that more often from now on, be warned! ~D ).

The theory you just espoused was debunked in the 19th Century in favour of Darwinism.

Husar
20/10/07, 00:27
The theory you just espoused was debunked in the 19th Century in favour of Darwinism.
I finally feel like a conservative again now. ~D

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
20/10/07, 23:44
I finally feel like a conservative again now. ~D

It was between Darwin and the other guy. The other guy, who's name I forget, was basically saying "if I get a tan I'll pass my tan onto my son" Darwin said "If you tan easier you'll have more kids, and pass that on."

Louis VI the Fat
21/10/07, 00:29
It was between Darwin and the other guy. The other guy, who's name I forget, was basically saying "if I get a tan I'll pass my tan onto my son" Darwin said "If you tan easier you'll have more kids, and pass that on."I think the other guy you are referring to is Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.

Oddly enough, it is not entirely correct to attribute Lamarckism to Lamarck.

Ironside
21/10/07, 10:56
I think the other guy you are referring to is Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.

Oddly enough, it is not entirely correct to attribute Lamarckism to Lamarck.

This one had a big period in Stalinist Russia (big failure) due to a guy named Lysenko

But oddly enough it have a bit of revive in later years, as it seems that you partially inheirit how the genes are used in that fashion (for example, stressed hens gives larger and more aggressive chickens).