|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Good Scientists Gone Bad -- Dr. Watson and Dr. Pauling | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Dr. Pauling and his wacky vitamin C theories.
Now Dr. Watson and his wacky IQ theories. http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece
James Watson has really put his foot in it this time. He has a tendency to say some shockingly offensive and bizarre things. Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that 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". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true". His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so." http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece
In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that "stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great." Double helix trouble | Higher education | The Guardian
He smiles. "Rosalind (Franklin) is my cross," he says slowly. "I'll bear it. I think she was partially autistic." He pauses for a while, before repeating the suggestion, as if to make it clear that this is no off-the-cuff insult, but a considered diagnosis. "I'd never really thought of scientists as autistic until this whole business of high-intelligence autism came up. There is probably no other explanation for Rosalind's behaviour. Thanks to Pharyngula for the heads up on all 3 examples. Page not found | ScienceBlogs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so." Is there even any reason to believe that the various "races" have at all been reproductively isolated for any significant period of time? It seems that all through history people have been traveling and trading between disparate civilizations, it's hard to believe that gene flow had ever been completely interrupted for more than a mere few generations. Sigh. My guess is that we're looking at another John Davison situation. The Bell Curve strikes again. (I've always found it partially hilarious that Charles Murray wrote a book about how Jews are smart and non-whites are dumb right after he divorced a Thai woman and married a Jew.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Damouse Member (Idle past 4936 days) Posts: 215 From: Brookfield, Wisconsin Joined: |
I laugh and i cringe at the same time.
Just out of curiousity, how is IQ determined? Is the uneducated man going to score less than the educated? This statement is false. Yeah so i lurk more than i post, thats why my posts are so low for two year's worth of membership. So sue me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Is the uneducated man going to score less than the educated? Sadly, yes. This is due to bias in the tests. There was a thread that had a major discussion on IQ a while back ... see Message 153 Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
Is there even any reason to believe that the various "races" have at all been reproductively isolated for any significant period of time?
He said "geographically separated in their evolution" not "reproductively isolated". Two populations could diverge significantly without being totally genetically isolated, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
So what's the OP question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
He said "geographically separated in their evolution" not "reproductively isolated". Reproductive isolation is what you would have to have, though. Otherwise gene flow would tend to equalize differences between even geographically disparate populations. I assumed that he was just implying reproductive isolation from geographic isolation as a kind of shorthand. There'd be no relevance to geographic isolation, otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
I can think of a couple of points to make.
Firstly, unless a continent is largely isolated by geographical barriers it's just silly to use continents as the basis for grouping populations. It might work for the Americas pre-Columbus but surely not for Africa. Why group Ethiopia with South Africa rather than Egypt ? Secondly, if there is gene flow, traits can and will flow between populations, Advantageous traits will tend to spread. You would need selective pressures - not just distance - to be even reasonably sure that a trait would not be found elsewhere. Intelligence seems to be generally useful (to humans) so I would expect it to be positively selected in almost all populations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Otherwise gene flow would tend to equalize differences between even geographically disparate populations. It would tend to but if the flow was low and the pressure high, then it would be negligible.
There'd be no relevance to geographic isolation, otherwise. The relevance is that it would allw for the development of "races" with them really being totally isolated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Secondly, if there is gene flow, traits can and will flow between populations, Advantageous traits will tend to spread. You would need selective pressures - not just distance - to be even reasonably sure that a trait would not be found elsewhere. The trait could still be found but just be less promenent. Plus, if the gene flow was negligible, then divergence could be expected.
Intelligence seems to be generally useful (to humans) so I would expect it to be positively selected in almost all populations. But if one group had less to select from and was geographically isolated, although not totally genetically isolated, then we could exect one group to end up with more intellegence to select for, and thus more intellegence in general. Just because gene flow happens on a minute level does not mean that the genes suddenly become homogeneous. The flow was probably negligible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
I wouldn't say that the gene flow between North Africa and Europe and the Middle East was that small. Which goes back to the arbitrary nature of the geographical borders chosen.
And I should add that we have no good reason for expecting a trait for higher intelligence to appear in Europe or Asia rather than Africa. And even if it did we would expect it to eventually spread - it's just a matter of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I wouldn't say that the gene flow between North Africa and Europe and the Middle East was that small. Compared to within those populations? We don't really know do we? Its a matter of speculation. I think it was probably negligible because of the morphological differences that are obvious.
Which goes back to the arbitrary nature of the geographical borders chosen. The geographical bordes as the continents IS pretty arbitrary in my opinion too. But the populations were seperate, and they were seperate by geography (but not just), so there is some boundary.
And I should add that we have no good reason for expecting a trait for higher intelligence to appear in Europe or Asia rather than Africa. Well, if Europeans and Asians are more intellegent than Africans we would.
And even if it did we would expect it to eventually spread - it's just a matter of time. Assuming we do, it hasn't happened yet then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: What about the morphological differences within Africa ? Which seem to be rather more impressive. And gene flow can be countered by selection. Even if there is no negative selection drift is far slower than positive selection.
quote: Well that would need to be established first. You can't reason backward from the possibility of differing traits to the conclusion that there is a specific difference. Especially when it doesn't seem a very likely possibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
We already know that different racial groupings have different genes. Otherwise every country in the world would have the same mixture of facial structures, skin colours, eye colours and hair colours and types. It is not unreasonable to assume that there are other less immediately obvious genetic differences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Well that would need to be established first. You can't reason backward from the possibility of differing traits to the conclusion that there is a specific difference. Especially when it doesn't seem a very likely possibility. Well, studies of IQ do show such differences. The current consensus view is that these differences are better explained by environmental factors and cultural bias in the testing than by genetic differences. This is supported by the sharp difference exhibited between African Americans and their presumably genetically comparable counterparts in Africa. Edited by Mr Jack, : Added point about cultural bias.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024