Re: Fred Reed weighs in on James Watson debacle.............
- From: abelard <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:57:10 +0200
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:50:29 -0400, FACE <AFaceInTheCrowd@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:37:56 +0200, in uk.politics.misc, for Re: Fred Reed
weighs in on James Watson debacle............., abelard <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
wrote
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:18:30 -0400, FACE <AFaceInTheCrowd@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Fred Reed:
who??
oh that lightweight wally
http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm
he'll say anything for attention:-
http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm
"Brains just allow you to be more elaborately and ornately
disastrously wrong."
"In short, a large IQ is an infallible predictor of emotional
inadequacy."
Screwing Jim
Science as Politics Occasionally Contaminated by Reason or Truth, but Only
Inadvertently
October 20, 2007
Oh, damn. I was gonna take a month off from my destined burden of social
irresponsibility, but about 500 letters said I should continue my pernicious
ravings, and made me feel humble, and this Watson business made me feel mouthy,
so...damn.]
Just now we are busily frying James Watson of DNA fame. It seems that he has
stated the unstatable, which of course one mustn't. In an interview with the
Sunday Times, he said 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." Which is
exactly what the testing says.
He further said that he hoped that everyone was equal, but added: "people
who have to deal with black employees find this not true." Live in Washington
for a bit.
Almost as bad, his views are also reflected in a new book, Avoid Boring
People, in which he writes: "A priori, 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."
At which point all hell broke loose.
For example, FAS--the Federation of American Scientists--weighed in with,
"The scientific enterprise is based on the promotion and proof of new ideas
through evidence, however controversial, but Dr. Watson chose to use his unique
stature to promote personal prejudices that are racist, vicious and unsupported
by science." This is boilerplate hysteria. In all likelihood, whoever wrote it
didn't believe it. If you have a case, you make it. If you don't, you call
names.
The important question is whether Watson is a racist or merely
observant--that is, whether what he says is true. A fact cannot be racist. The
question of what racial differences exist and why falls into the domain of
science--of genetics, psychometrics, and anthropology, which is almost science.
It seems to me that if FAS thinks Watson wrong, a public debate on the merits
would give the organization a chance to demonstrate his errors. I know where to
find quite a few very credentialed scientists who might have the courage to
accept the challenge. I suggest a written and unedited debate on a public
website. If Watson's remarks are unsupported by the evidence, surely FAS would
be happy to demonstrate as much. No?
Not a chance. They would get eaten, and they know it.
Now, science. Watson's idea, that different environments select for
different traits, is the central idea of the theory of evolutions. To doubt that
humans evolved differently in response to different environmental pressures is
to doubt evolution in its entirely. This, I think, few at FAS will do.
All right: Will anyone give me one scientific reason why separated groups of
people should not have evolved different levels of intelligence? Groups differ
in hair color, color of skin, shape of eyes, ratios of various long bones to
others, biochemistry, and brain size. Give me one reason why all groups must be
precisely identical in intelligence. Just one reason, and Watson's argument
fails. I'm waiting.
No one doubts, as long as blacks (or women) are not involved, that
differences in intelligence can exist between subspecies, which is what the
races are.
first define 'race' or 'sub-species' in a clear fashion
merely stating baldly without evidence that they are synonyms is not
convincing
No one will take exception if I say that Border Collies are smarter
than pit bulls, or that they have been genetically selected for intelligence.
Nor will anyone suggest that the difference is cultural, or that breeds of dogs
are "social constructs," or that Border Collies do not exist because
intermediate breeds do.
Further--note this carefully, please--so far as I know, neither FAS nor
other guardians of PC really object to the idea that genetic differences in
intelligence exist between human groups. Recently Charles Murray, writing in
Commentary magazine, suggested that the phenomenal overrepresentation of Jews in
affairs intellectual is due to superior intelligence, that the superiority may
be genetic, and that evolution may be the reason. (Persecution over centuries
selected for those bright enough to survive.) Whether this is true can be
debated. My point is that no one objected to the genetic explanation. In
particular, Murray was not accused of racism or banished from polite society.
Saying that Jews are smarter is equally as racist as saying that blacks
aren't. Why is it that one statement arouses fury whereas the other doesn't?
The reason, I suspect, is the My-God-now-what? factor. Almost everyone
outside of academe, and I'll guess many more within than will admit it, know
that Watson is right. The evidence is overwhelming and the research careful, as
anyone knows who looks into it. Blue-collar people, in constant contact with
blacks, know it. School teachers know it. The police know it. Federal workers
sitting next to affirmative-action hires know it. Reporters know it. Blacks know
it.
But if we admit it, then--My God, what now? Current policy is to avoid the
question. Television and welfare (affirmative action is welfare) maintain an
uneasy calm. Journalistic suppression of discussion helps. Few see the vast,
miserable, hopeless black sections of the cities. Few want to see. All is
evasion. That lump in your armpit seems to be growing. Better think about
something else.
Some people fear (I suspect) that, if the truth were admitted, nut jobs
would call for the reinstitution of apartheid or some such. No doubt they would.
The more profoundly disturbing question is what should policy then be? Oh my
God, what now? As long as we pretend that racism causes the many and inescapable
disparities, we can avoid that looming horror: What now?
What we have now works, barely. A city burns from time to time, yes. Blacks
are angry, whites are angry, but we totter on. The problem is that by
maintaining a system based on pretense, we make impossible the discovery of a
better approach. Denying that a difficulty exists seldom solves it. We cannot
muddle through, since "through" implies something on the other side. There is
nothing there.
The reasonable thing would be to say, "This is how things are. How can we
best respond so as to produce the least misery for all concerned?" Instead we
lie, to ourselves and each other, try to legislate biological differences out of
existence, play "Gotcha!" when someone inadvertently speaks the truth, and
dog-pack him till he squirms and wets the rug and apologizes, which Watson did,
and nothing changes, or will.
~~~~
More of the thought police...............
it's mostly bad logic with little purpose
http://www.abelard.org/statistics.htm
even if there is a 1sd difference there will be more 'white' mental
defectives in the usa than 'black' mental defectives
same with the uk.....
with iqs in western societies rising ~1sd in 40 years.....
with the grave difficulties defining 'iq'
just what is the purpose of the above sort of babble?
The purpose is that I did not consider it babble, but did consider it pretty
plain talk.
i could generate 'plain talk' about the flying saucer invasion....
that would not give it content....
the more you dig into that sort of babble the less content you will
find....
what is he saying of any real substance or purpose?
regards....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Guardian: Riven by class and no social mobility - Britain in 2007
- Next by Date: Re: Popefire ;-)
- Previous by thread: Re: Fred Reed weighs in on James Watson debacle.............
- Next by thread: Re: Fred Reed weighs in on James Watson debacle.............
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
