From Elly Sherman:
Re: Nobel scientist suspended from job over race comments (Oct. 18): was it not enough that he cheated Rosalind Franklin from what rightly was recognition of her work, i.e., the DNA structure? He is a blot on sciences and should return his Nobel prize.
Following are additional comments on this entry. Type your own into the space right of the first one.
4 Comments:
Rosalind didnt think so... the only people that do are ideologues.
meanwhile isnt not enough taht the feminists try to foist einsteins wife as the person who worked the math, and totally ignore EMMY NOETHER...
and that they promote racial eugenics int he form of margret sangers negro project reformed as the politically correct planned parenthood?
so many of the opinions on this page and such are ideologically based and have no bearing..
that tact is a way to have better science? (yes, self sensor so that no fruitbats are offended)
all watson was saying is that you cant hand out road maps for nj to everyone as a means of getting around everywhere..
that if you are in sri lanka and your using a road map for nj.. your never going to get where you want.
put so the propeller heads will get it.
if your premises are wrong, and your actions are based on those premises, your outcome can only be valid by some odd form of luck.
the fact that some here are professors and that they can start their stuff off with "i dont know anything about this", then go into a whole bunch of things taht are wrong.. and they say it all with inspecific language.. it may, it might, could be... and they said, some thought, etc.
no wonder he is out..
lysenkoism is back... but then again that was invented in the exact same political climate that the schools and society here have. yes, we are very communist in our ways.. control speech (which is why we are about to remove samuel clemmins, harriet tubman, h rap brown, and lots of others from the library... after all, didnt they use the word ni***r in thier writings? heck rap brown titled the book with it!), the truth comes from the ideological assertion..
after all, thats what this is... ideological assertion that we are all the same inside.. (like horses and such), and that the elite are not, and should rule..
well, ask all the gentics experts here.. what happens when you take those in a population who are not capable, and give them gifts that cause them to mate and produce more than they would witout that assistance?
AND
what will happen to the group that is better capable that has stuff taken away from them that they have less children
AND
there is a small group that is capable and has stuff given to them, and have children in large numbers like the bottom, except they are all products of unions of elite (like the smart, the party member,s etc).
you get a two population system where a large underclass are slaved to a smarter overclass..
isnt that what socilist redistribution of wealth is doing while sayin we are the same?
as in history, the intelligentsia are digging everyones graves including their own...
they are smart enough to be stupid.
You wrote:
"well, ask all the gentics experts here.. what happens when you take those in a population who are not capable, and give them gifts that cause them to mate and produce more than they would witout that assistance?
AND
what will happen to the group that is better capable that has stuff taken away from them that they have less children
AND
there is a small group that is capable and has stuff given to them, and have children in large numbers like the bottom, except they are all products of unions of elite (like the smart, the party member,s etc).
you get a two population system where a large underclass are slaved to a smarter overclass.."
No, you don't. Statistical studies show a well-defined phenomenon of "regression toward the norm". In simple terms, the children of the more intelligent are, on average, less intelligent than their parents, whilst still more intelligent than average; and conversely, the children of the less intelligent are, on average, more intelligent than their parents, whilst still less intelligent than average.
Your fears remind me of the Malthusian fallacy ... since the observed facts do not correspond to one's prejudices, one is more likely to disregard the facts than the prejudice.
Whilst there is no doubt that inherited privilege does exist, and is inequitable in its effects, it's also true that the majority of privileged offspring make less of their greater advantages than their parents did of their lesser advantages.
Further, there's nothing quite like disadvantage to spur the exceptional to extraordinary effort and achievement. These are the individuals who don't waste time whining "it isn't fair"; rather, they recognise the reality that the environment they find themselves in is indeed an uneven playing field, but then go on and step up to the challenge to excel in spite of every obstacle.
Dear Mr. (or Ms. who knows?) Artfldgr,
This is in response to your comments. "Tact is a way of science" you question. Well, certainly science should not care about whether it's tactful or not. But it also should not support racist or any other ideologies. Science is science when it is objective, and when it is based on data and pure logic unbiased by personal views. You state with great wisdom and apparently unmovable stance that "some here are professors and that they can start their stuff off with "i dont know anything about this", then go into a whole bunch of things taht are wrong.. and they say it all with inspecific language.. it may, it might, could be... and they said, some thought, etc. "
But you can't even read the text in these blogs! The fact that "some professors" acknowledge they "don't know nearly enough" to answer the complex questions or that they are "not nearly knowledgeable about all the facts" does not mean they "don't know anything". In fact I suspect it means they know much more than you do and that is exactly why they acknowledge the fact that there are a lot of unanswered questions.
It is quite illuminating that they appear humble, while you stress on and air your solid opinion on things.
If you read the blogs you will see that those who actually know what they are talking about list numerous problems and actually know that race as a concept is not scientifically validated, "intelligence" as a measure is not appropriate and is a colloquial term not scientifically defined, and the effects of culture vs. genes have not been clearly understood.
Why would you abandon scientific objectivity and go ahead with statements about races before you actually find the answers to the above, I don't know. Perhaps you do. But my guess is that you have read the bloogs with a pair of glasses on that allowed you to determine right away who is with you and who is against you. But science is not about black and white, good or bad, it's about objectivity, data, and pure logic. And these are the three elements missing from your feedback as well as from Watson's comment.
Freedom of speech? Oh yeah, let's have it. Anyone can say anything, right? Are there limits? Perhaps not for bloggers. But for a scientist, representing a whole field of science, genetics, and speaking at a public meeting? Perhaps there should be some responsibility there. Personal feelings should not cloud one's mind. Objectivity independent of ideology should prevail. Otherwise, the public, like yourself, will be given half truths, that they can interpret and twist as they feel like, according to the smoky glasses through which they view their narrow worlds.
using your idea there would be no explanation for intelligence leaving the 'norm'.
do not confuse outcome with ability and such. while two greats in science can marry and have no so great kids, they are often as intelligent, if not as lucky in their outcomes. there are lots of examples like this, care to check out douglas hofstadter and his life?
your assertion has no basis, since it defines an arbitrary norm that less intelligent move towards and more intelligent also move towards, and there is no bsis for this.
you may be the one being malthusian, since its not likely that while everything else developes genetically and varies in mix across the board, intelligence holds to some arbitrary mean that the more intelligent regress to and the less intelligent progress to, without there being any darwinian pressure to do so.
such a theory locks any population that believes it into the socialistic concept of the end of genetic darwinism for man, which is a fallacy, as there is always some form of selective pressure for one thing over another thing and skewed by outcomes (even if the state is skewing those outcomes TOWARDS regression by removing the natural compounded benifits that occure in populaitons as the inteligent tend to hang out with the intelligent and the less intelligent hang out with the less intelligent, despite socialisms utopian malthusian desire to have all of us hang out as if we were all the same)
how did the chinese and the ashkenazi jews test out on top?
the point spread we are discussing here is NOT 5 points its more than 40 points between the top and the bottom populaitons (and they are NOT converging they are actually now starting to get worse as we are trying to treat eveyone the same rather than individualize the teachings for the different types of peoples).
your statement to my malthusian would presuspose prejudice... and condemns me as such fore telling the truth that we are all individuals, and as individual intelligences vary, so do the populations intelligences vary.
the truth is not prjudicial, what you do with it is.
this is YOUR problem in that your hung up with the concept that more intelligent is better, and that better embues those with it as being better, and therefore that makes the others lessers... and oh oh... you have classes... (which is nothing but arbitrary set theory dividing groups)
the truth is that in societies that didnt do this, the individuals intelligences do not predict clear outcomes. while more intelligent tend to do better, less intelligent are not doomed. many intelligent people end up less wealthy than less intelligent people, if wealth be your measure of better.
the old judeo christian ethos pointed out that we were equal not because of our measures.. which is the mental problem yhou have... we are equal by definition of our existence as what we are...
so a person who is more intelligent is not better in some false value judgment.. they are more capable of doing more things (a potential curse).. and still what they decide to do will help define outcomes..
the less capable are still capable...
its weird.. but you dont see a problem when you see someone singing opera... as long as everyone in a small populaiotn cant sing opera!!!
you dont mind that the fastest runners on the planet are from what lineage? why are you not battling to even out the gap in marathon running? why are you and most people ONLY focused on G type intelligence?
because G type is more useful to more people... we need runners and such, but it takes G types to make the cameras, argue contracts, and build a industry around that runner. and in that most of the stuff is not G related... but more interpersonal related.
look at it this way..
stalin was not a genius, neither was hitler... pol pot, or mao...
they were not super geniuses... most politicians are not... yet they rise much higher in power and money than physicists, and who goes hat in hand to whom?
so its not the truth that different populations are different that is the problem. viva la difference...
the problem is that people like you cant see past their own value judgments.. nor can you even see your making them.. and that they are premises behind how you think.
by the way... i am interaccially married... we plan on having kids... oh.. i have a child from a prior relationship... he is on math scholarship.. i am a bronx science attendee... granmom was a research chemist..
check out the family dynasties in math, science, art, theater... (or didnt you notice barrymores?)
the truth and facts are not the enemy... silent internal premises that lead to false value judgments are..
they lead one to create a new world in which lysinkoism will triumph... by the way.. these dead periods driven by philosophy and force of political will of the many over the smarter few..
are now referred to as dark ages..
after all... when top researchers are afraid to do their science freely... like biologists were not able to dissect... led to dark times in science... we are way past dissection...
lysinkoism destroyed russian genetics and its participation to this day!!!
such things that change truth for convenience do not lead to better worlds.. what it leads to is a system that diverges mroe and more from reality as the errors compound on each other and are not corrected... pretty soon you think your heading north, when your heading up.
Post a Comment
<< Home