Is this Nobel Prize winner a racist?

[Devastatin Dave]

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_te...cle3067222.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]

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]

I might buy him a beer in the pub,

You'd buy a racist a beer?

[KukriKhan]

Hell, I'd buy a headless chicken a beer, just to see him dance.

[Devastatin Dave]

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?



























Sorry, I just can't help myself.

[KukriKhan]

o'Course. PETA be damned. Chickens were put on this earth for our sustenance and amusement.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Gee, Kukri, that seems a bit speciest.



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

CR

[Ja'chyra]

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

[naut]

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]

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

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.

[Spino]

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]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wu9-GmOmKs

[Viking]

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.

[CrossLOPER]

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

I know. I'm making fun of this thread, or more the reason it was posted.

[The Wizard]

Call me cruel and criminal, but I LOL'd at that video. Hard, too.

[Proletariat]

That video's an advertisement for Britain's pro-gun lobby. It has to be.

[CrossLOPER]

It's been remove, unfortunately.

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

[ajaxfetish]

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_te...cle3067222.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]

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]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

[The Wizard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Is this Nobel Prize winner a racist?

Yes.

[KukriKhan]

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]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.