0
   

Top scientist claims black people 'stupid'

 
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 09:16 pm
Something to ponder:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071016131452.htm
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 09:57 pm
Quote:
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.


that was a good laugh. Smile
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 02:34 am
Foofie wrote:
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.


I think you'll find that when the British write in this or any other forum they do so in whatever register they please.

Although I do correct the American usage from time to time, when it grates, for the most part I find it tolerable, even entertaining. :wink:
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 04:08 am
well, it makes sense if our intelligence is absed off of evolution.

You have to ask yourself, is your intelligence based off of evolution?

If it is, then its entire possible that a human from a less evolved, or should i say, a brain close to that of our original ancestors, if we came from africa, would be less intelligent than a species that traversed far from its homeland and continued to evolve. just look at 2 of the biggest leaders in the world, japan and the u.k. both island nations requiring the use of boats, or speration from the mainland leading to seperat evolutionary paths, who knows.

I don't know, if blacks are dumber, they make up for it with bigger cocks and bigger builds. right?!

So whos to say "whites" being smarter makes us any less equal?
What if any tests conducted were merely biased towards a specific way of thinking whites would use that blacks didnt?

What about when races mix?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 04:24 am
Meanwhile, Watson is backpedaling

Today's New York Times wrote:
James D. Watson, who shared the 1962 Nobel prize for deciphering the double-helix of DNA, apologized "unreservedly" yesterday for comments reported this week suggesting that black people, over all, are not as intelligent as whites.

[...]

In a statement given to The Associated Press yesterday, Dr. Watson said, "I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. There is no scientific basis for such a belief."

But his publicist, Kate Farquhar-Thomson, would not say whether Dr. Watson believed he had been misquoted. "You have the statement," she said. "That's it, I am afraid."

Full article
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 04:58 am
Don't forget that few if any American blacks are purely African. Their genes are mixed with white American genes.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 05:34 am
Thomas wrote:
Meanwhile, Watson is backpedaling


Thanks for the link, Thomas.


It's actually reported in all papers today - here, in print (from the Baltimore Sun, page 2) for the sceptics

http://i22.tinypic.com/fyn3uf.jpg


Well, yes, these scientific basis some were referring here to ....
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 06:39 am
It is perhaps useful to recall the career of William Shockley, the coinventor of the transistor and one of the leading figures in the development of the IT industry in Northern California. Though not nearly so eminent a scientist as Watson, particularly given the latter's achievements in the discovery of the structure of DNA, Shockley was a leader in the practical development of modern electronics (like Watson and Al Gore, he also won a Nobel prize).

He also rather persistently espressed similar beliefs with respect to Africans, even going on to apply them in various eugenic theories about the collective effect on the growing and evolving population.

In general his statements were regarded with universal horror an adpprobation. He was effectively silenced by a society unable to deal with these blasphemous violations of secular quasi religious cant. Unlike Watson he persisted, even writing a book about it and revealing himself to be a somewhat obsessive crank in the process.

I think the story illustrates some interesting truths on both sides of these controversies. While we are all encouraged to believe that Gallileo was all good in his (not even original) assertions about the structure of the solar system, and that the Inquisition was all evil in its attempt to suppress the expression of a "new" idea in a manner to challenge the Aristotelian conventions of the day, we can see in these analogous stories elements of complexity that significantly diminish the "purity" of both sides in these supposed contests between truth and convention.

I think that issues like this comprise much of what Spendius has been arguing about with such remarkable persistence on the Intelligent design Thread. He makes some good points.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 06:58 am
McTag wrote:
Foofie wrote:
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.


I think you'll find that when the British write in this or any other forum they do so in whatever register they please.

Although I do correct the American usage from time to time, when it grates, for the most part I find it tolerable, even entertaining. :wink:
you mean like this....?

Quote:
well, it makes sense if our intelligence is absed off of evolution.

You have to ask yourself, is your intelligence based off of evolution?

If it is, then its entire possible that a human from a less evolved, or should i say, a brain close to that of our original ancestors, if we came from africa, would be less intelligent than a species that traversed far from its homeland and continued to evolve. just look at 2 of the biggest leaders in the world, japan and the u.k. both island nations requiring the use of boats, or speration from the mainland leading to seperat evolutionary paths, who knows.

I don't know, if blacks are dumber, they make up for it with bigger cocks and bigger builds. right?!
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 07:28 am
It certainly seems that Watson has made a fool of himself. He obviously jumped into hot water and took his institute too, when there was no need. But a careful reading of his words "there is no scientific evidence to relate intelligence and race" could have had the preffix "in our institute". Because thats not their field of research.

But from the same NYT article where Watson is quoted we read:

Quote:
Nevertheless, Dr. Watson, 79, is hardly the first eminent researcher to assert that inherited characteristics like skin color are correlated to intelligence and that people of African descent fall short. For example, William B. Shockley, a Nobel laureate for his work with transistors, in later life developed ideas of eugenics based on the supposed intellectual inferiority of blacks.

His ideas were greeted with scorn, and Dr. Watson is encountering a similar reaction. According to the BBC, the Science Museum of London canceled a speech Dr. Watson was to have given there today, saying that much as it supports robust discussion of controversial ideas, Dr. Watson's assertions on race and intelligence are "beyond the point of acceptable debate."


So Watson is not the first to assert that inherited characteristics are correlated to intelligence, and that there are racial differences. I'm not qualified to say if he is correct. But I am qualified enough to ask why so eminent a body as the Science Museum deems the topic "beyond the point of acceptable debate"[/i].
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 07:38 am
They might not want a demo outside their building Steve so they can have their cake and eat it as well.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 08:01 am
I have a great deal of sympathy with that Spendy

meanwhile George wrote
Quote:
(the)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;

Correct. It doesnt imply the non existence of anything. In fact many species exhibit non selfish altruistic behaviour which in a more sophisticated human sense we could interpret as moral values.

Quote:
the possibility of a creator of the universe;

Again correct. You cant prove non existence. But evolution doesnt provide any support for the proposition that the Creator God exists either. Evolution explains so much, it makes one question exactly what role is left for the Creator God to play. Couple that with the anthropic principle and God's part in Creation (notice I use capital C) is even more obscure.

Quote:
or the human/tribal need for social structures and mythology with which to deal with the perplexities of our existence.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here George but if you are talking about organised religion, I think its fairly clear how that came about. Man invented gods to appease and hence bring good fortune, to threaten others and so to control them, and generally to explain the inexplicable.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 08:17 am
Steve 41oo wrote:

So Watson is not the first to assert that inherited characteristics are correlated to intelligence, and that there are racial differences. I'm not qualified to say if he is correct. But I am qualified enough to ask why so eminent a body as the Science Museum deems the topic "beyond the point of acceptable debate"[/i].


So that are now the sources of "people Watson refers to. Or would refer to if he was allowed to speak." you referred to earlier?

And when you said that it was discracefull that Watson was banned by the Science Museum - how do you call now what his own institute does?
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 08:22 am
Thanks Watson - but I think we can make our own minds up about who is 'intelligent' and who lacking in the brains department.

Watson declares he can't believe he said those things?
Errrr……

Meanwhile - in their own quiet way and without fanfare, his fellow African Americans have already proven they have more insight and wisdom than suits the white supremacists that try and keep them ripe and ready for army recruitment.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/10/07/military_sees_big_decline_in_black_enlistees/

I think the above statistic shows not only high intelligence - but also a great deal of grass roots, community based resourcefulness and commitment to protecting their children - credit where it's due.

This just tells me that African Americans have the intelligence to know right from wrong - where as Watson doesn't know the difference - with the result that his credibility is now questioned - even by himself!

Yeah - I'll make my own mind up about 'intelligence' around the planet.

Can't help wondering if a few bags of gold from the weapons manufacturers who donate to Clinton's campaign
didn't find their way into Watson's car boot.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3075691.ece
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 08:30 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
But a careful reading of his words "there is no scientific evidence to relate intelligence and race" could have had the preffix "in our institute". Because thats not their field of research.


I overread this. When you look at my copied newspaper report, they quote hin differently - as does the AP-correspondent, whose article is published in some dozen other papers.

---------

ScientificAmerica.com:
Quote:
Just to be clear: They didn't fire him, they didn't take away his position as Chancellor of the university, and they probably won't ever take his name off of their graduate school (The Watson School of Biological Sciences), but the board of trustees at CSHL has decided to "suspend the administrative responsibilities" of James D. Watson.

Full press release
October 18, 2007

Statement by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Board of Trustees and President Bruce Stillman, Ph.D.
Regarding Dr. Watson's Comments in The Sunday Times on October 14, 2007

Earlier this evening, the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Board of Trustees decided to suspend the administrative responsibilities of Chancellor James D. Watson, Ph.D., pending further deliberation by the Board.

This action follows the Board's public statement yesterday disagreeing with the comments attributed to Dr. Watson in the October 14, 2007 edition of The Sunday Times U.K.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 08:41 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
So Watson is not the first to assert that inherited characteristics are correlated to intelligence, and that there are racial differences. I'm not qualified to say if he is correct. But I am qualified enough to ask why so eminent a body as the Science Museum deems the topic "beyond the point of acceptable debate"[/i].


From the Times

Quote:
A Nobel Prize-winning geneticist has cancelled a string of speaking engagements in Britain after being suspended from a prestigious scientific laboratory for claiming that black people are less intelligent than whites.

James Watson is on his way back to the United States to "sort out" his job at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Long Island, NY. His comments caused a storm of controversy.

The scientist, who won the Nobel prize for his part in discovering the structure of DNA, was quoted in an interview in The Sunday Times 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."

Although Dr Watson tried to quell the row with an apology last night, he was too late to prevent widespread condemnation of his comments.

The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory board joined a throng of prominent researchers and institutions who said they found the remarks Dr Watson was quoted as saying to be offensive and scientifically incorrect.

[...]
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 08:43 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:

So Watson is not the first to assert that inherited characteristics are correlated to intelligence, and that there are racial differences. I'm not qualified to say if he is correct. But I am qualified enough to ask why so eminent a body as the Science Museum deems the topic "beyond the point of acceptable debate"[/i].


So that are now the sources of "people Watson refers to. Or would refer to if he was allowed to speak." you referred to earlier?

And when you said that it was discracefull that Watson was banned by the Science Museum - how do you call now what his own institute does?
I think his own institution didnt want to be drawn into the row, especially as their field of research had nothing to do with race and intelligence. I can fully understand why they might have put pressure on Watson to withdraw and apologise, even if he was a founder of the Institute. But I do think it was disgraceful the SM appeared to have gagged him. Let him speak and debate the issue. It makes them look cowards in the face of controversy.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 08:48 am
Here again from that above Times report, a different quotation ...

Quote:
"That is not what I meant. More importantly, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

He went on: "I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. I can certainly understand why people reading those words have reacted in the ways they have."

Dr Watson has said before that there is a genetic basis for intelligence - something undisputed by other scientists. But experts deny there is any such thing as race on a genetic level.
[...]
A spokeswoman for Dr Watson's publisher said: "Dr Watson feels he needs to go home and sort things out."
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 08:54 am
It doesn't sound like Watson desires to "speak and debate the issue", Steve. Smile
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 08:58 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Read a book back in college detailing the fact that the third member of the 'watson and crick' team, whose work was essential in discovering DNA - wasn't acknowledged in any way, shape or fashion, due to her status as a female.

Cycloptichorn



Haven't read the past this post yet...but this is the first thing I think of when I think of Watson and Crick.
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 11/27/2021 at 05:13:57