0
   

Top scientist claims black people 'stupid'

 
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 12:33 pm
James Watson must be really dumb. Or homosexual or both.

Quote:
The honours that have to come to Watson include: the John Collins Warren Prize of the Massachusetts General Hospital, with Crick in 1959; the Eli Lilly Award in Biochemistry in the same year; the Lasker Award, with Crick and Wilkins in 1960; the Research Corporation Prize, with Crick in 1962; membership of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences, and Foreign membership of the Danish Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is also a consultant to the President's Scientific Advisory Committee.

Watson is unmarried. His recreations are bird-watching and walking.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 01:22 pm
I'm with Mr Laden as well. Bob Dylan taught himself to play the piano during his short stay at the University of Minnesota and that's good enough for me.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 01:35 pm
spendius wrote:
I'm with Mr Laden as well.
Good he's a Darwinian evolutionist anthropologist. And as an assistant professor, I believe Mr or Dr is the correct title.
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 01:45 pm
Now, this reaction was utterly predictable.

Usually, Scientists who amass awards and credentials as Watson has, are not usually termed a "moron". as Laden asserts. Another ad hominem, I assume. First kill the messenger, then attack the message. Razz

Next, Laden pointed out certain items that sounded very much akin to what I was trying to put across in my earlier post. His points are very well taken, in that we tend to agree in large.

He spoiled his own case, in my eyes at any rate, by character assassination on Watson. Professionals are not supposed to act in that way toward one another. One presents one's "professional opinion" in contrast to that proposed by another. One doesn't stoop to name calling to reinforce one's case. If these niceties are not followed, then it turns into a lot of what we see posted in these forums at times. Sad ....and nothing gets accomplished.

Halfback
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 01:52 pm
halfback,

Laden wrote that yesterday in his personal "blog". I am sure he would clean up his language if writing something formal.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 01:55 pm
Well I wouldn't if I was him. Everybody knows about Mr Watson I believe. It went to his head.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 02:04 pm
spendius wrote:
Well I wouldn't if I was him. Everybody knows about Mr Watson I believe. It went to his head.
well no actually I dont please tell what it was that turned his head. All I know is that he and Crick used to drink in the Eagle just near the old Cavendish laboratory and it was here that they blurted out their discovery to an audience of students and market stall holders in 1953. They do good beer, but the food is not up to much as Walter will attest.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 02:10 pm
quote from American Scientist Online

Quote:
On the last day of February in 1953, according to James Watson, Francis Crick announced to the patrons of the Eagle pub in Cambridge, "We have discovered the secret of life." History supports the boast. If life ever had a secret, the double helix of DNA was surely it. And yet Watson and Crick had not laid bare all the secrets of molecular biology. The campaign to understand the code embodied in the double helix was just beginning, and the years ahead would be notable for frustration, false starts and brilliant ideas that turned out to be utterly wrong. It took another full decade to solve the code.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 02:32 pm
Lets just say Watson was right, what would be the answer to this problem. I mean how or what would be the best way to help poor unintelligent black folks?

IMO, the quickest way to decrease the gap in intelligence and make a huge difference to a large number of black peoples intelligence in a very short period of time (hyperspeed evolution), would be to have a "Breeding Solution" or Camp, where by we race-mix the most intelligent with the least. I would suggest thousands of camps be built in Israel since they're the most intelligent and we transfer thousands of blacks from the U.S. to mix with Jews. Of course we'd have to increase Israel financial aid. If Israel agrees, i would deposit $10,000 for this cause.

Anyone with me?

[Satire] Smile
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 02:34 pm
Steve wrote-

Quote:
Good he's a Darwinian evolutionist


So am I Steve. That's why I don't think it should be taught to kids. It isn't an abstraction to beat people up with. And it doesn't answer the real questions either.

And if-

Quote:
"We have discovered the secret of life".


is not going to their heads I don't know what is.

It's only a tentative description anyway. Not an explanation. Like a lot of other things.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 02:47 pm
spendius wrote:
Steve wrote-

Quote:
Good he's a Darwinian evolutionist


So am I Steve. That's why I don't think it should be taught to kids. It isn't an abstraction to beat people up with. And it doesn't answer the real questions either.
Well you surprise me. I suppose I shouldnt be surprised you surprise me but there I am surprised. So whats all this vociferous advocacy of ID on other threads if you are after all a Darwinian evolutionist? And what are the real questions we should be addressing?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 03:27 pm
I believe the answer to that is that acceptance of "Darwinian Evolution" (i.e. his theory about the evolution of self-replecating species) does not imply the non-existence of either moral values; the possibility of a creator of the universe; or the human/tribal need for social structures and mythology with which to deal with the perplexities of our existence. It is merely unfortunate that many (relatively unimaginative in my view) posters here fail to understand this point. My impression is that Spendi has been arguing in various ways for this point for a long time on that thread.

With respect to the basic topic of this thread, Thomas' various posts have come closest to the whole truth - in my view. This is not the first time an eminent scientist (generally one of a rather provocative disposition) has put forward the thesis that Africans might - on average - be less intelligent than others. Generally it is done in a manner to suggest that the speaker prefers the genetic explanatiion of the alleged result to the other possible ones enumerated by Thomas. The fact is there is no scientific data (that I am aware of) that would require that conclusion - it is a most unscientific assertion, unless it is acconpanied by the necessary qualifiers.

It is also unfortunate that we feel compelled to suppress the topic entirely, regarding it as some kind of blasphemy against the tenants of the pseudo religion of secular political correctitude.

The fact is that, even assuming a measurable average difference in the intelligence potential of (say) Africans and (say) Asians, any observable difference between individuals of each group is much more likely to arise from individual rather than group differences. This is the inexorable result of the observed standard deviation in the group data itself. Variations within the groups are very large compared to even the largest expected average variations between the groups.

Finally there are too many historically observable popular opinions about the relative intelligence of various groups that are subsequently found to utterly false, to put much stock in such popular conceptions. The grandchildren of the largely poor uneducated and peasant Jewish, Irish, Polish, and Chinese immigeants who flooded to the US in the late 19th century, and who were then cited as illiterate, uneducated and uneducable by the complacent "Know Nothing" nativists of the age now dominate the entry classes of our best universities. So much for popular wisdom on the subject.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 05:22 pm
I think intelligence is about how to deal with what the cat brought in.

An intelligent person is someone who deals with it more efficacacaciously than how an unintelligent would, the objective evidence being who gets deepest into the **** on a level playing field rather than one on which Mom and Pop have smoothed some of the crinkles out or one's capacity to reassure one's fellow creatures of their wonderfulness is more popular than is informing them of their utter absurdity.

There are numerous literary works which portray a change in a relationship dynamic resulting from a radical change of scene.

Tom Jones in that inn with that mature woman for example. It's a good job Sophie had money coming otherwise Fielding would never have dared to find a happy ending like he did.

Stendahl had his lad guilliotined and his muse took his head home in a basket.

I'll bet Mr Watson would be at a complete loss what to do on being approached by the Fat Slags in VIZ on Blackpool Prom and he's probably hopeless at darts and on the Dodgems.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 05:47 pm
There is a school of thought that the female of our species has a preference for stupid men, who have compensating characteristics, on the basis that now the deisels are humming smoothly she knows the way forward and male intelligence has become, to a greater or lesser extent, depending who you believe, something of a nuisance.

That's why I did the Footballer's Wives posts in another place. I was drawing the attention of anti-IDers to that way of seeing things in case they were unaware of themselves, egos a-twitter, being lured along a path which they might not choose did they know where it is leading.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 08:43 pm
The statistics is correlation not cause and effect. When one resorts to statistics it means he/she doesn't know but it only points there. Any science or statement(s) by scientist(s) using statistics to state something means he/she has reached the limit of his/her understanding. It is an educated guess. A good example would be the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. By its name he says he doesn't know. Why? Our best observable means is light and our sense of sight. The photon, the smallest unit of light, excites even an electron so its orbit cannot be determined. In philosophy we know that our observation of an object should not affect its behavior. The fact that the photon does affect the behavior of an electron means it is not observable. But instead of stating that we have reached the limit of observation and can only guess, Heisenberg used statistics to make himself sound more knowledgeable.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 08:51 pm
What the hell, I'm agreeing with George?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 08:58 pm
What may also be incorrect, scientifically, is to claim that there is such a thing as a "white" bellcurve. White people are not one monolithic group of Europeans, or people descended from Europeans. There are sub-groups of whites that may, or may not, show themselves to have a higher or lower average IQ, or intelligence, as measured on any scale.

In other words, if the bellcurve that reflects all white people, claims to be skewed to the right (greater average intelligence), there are likely plenty of not so smart white folks that are going along for the ride, so to speak.

And, in a politically correct world, where we not only don't want to claim any group "tests" as inferior, is there also a reluctance to claim any group "tests" superior? And, the fact that it is a popular notion, that the Japanese test higher than any other group, does that reflect an attempt to "posivitize" (new word?) the Japanese?

Probably the smartest were the beings at Area 51, and they crashed their craft. How smart was that.
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 09:01 pm
Well, OSSO, you might not necessarily agree with George 100%, but you have to admit, he's got style! :wink:

I have to go along with your read on the matter, GEORGE. As usual, you have grasped the crux of the situation and expressed it succinctly. Bravo!

Halfback
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 09:06 pm
McTag wrote:
Foofie wrote:
....Mom and dad (please use Americanese when replying to us Yanks).


What are you...CRAZY?


No. I just don't care for Britishisms (Mummy). That's just my preference a la Bartleby the Scrivener (Herman Melville). If I want to hear Britishisms, I can watch Keeping Up Appearances.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 09:11 pm
Your xenoglossophobia is duly noted...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/28/2021 at 12:24:19