Blacks and Whites are Equally Intelligent, My Dear Watson
It may seem to some to be a bit astonishing that recently, James Watson, co-discoverer of the double-helical structure of DNA (along with Francis Crick) would openly display a racist attitude when he claimed that black people are less intelligent than whites. But Watson is a scientist! He won a Nobel Prize, for crying out loud! Science says blacks are less intelligent! Science is racist!
I'm curious as to what methods (if any) Watson used to determine the level of general intelligence between races. There is no reliable means by which to quantify intelligence. Even just defining intelligence is enough of an ordeal; not to mention the criticism that IQ tests generate among the scientific community (which, by the way, show no significant difference between white test takers and black test takers). And there is certainly no means by which to conclude that there is any correlation between race and intelligence.
The problem is that Watson doesn't cite any of his sources or explain how he comes to his conclusions. As Keith Vaz (of the Home Affairs Select Committee) puts it, Watson's comments are "baseless, unscientific, and extremely offensive..." They're his own personal prejudices, not backed whatsoever with any scientific findings. But this shouldn't be totally surprising, coming from Dr. Watson. His sexist attitude is just short of infamy, having completely mistreated Rosalind Franklin in his book The Double Helix and just short of completely stealing her remarkable work and leaving her uncredited. This, of course, without mention of Dr. Watson's previous racist commentary, when he suggested (without conclusive evidence) that black men have stronger libidos than whites.
Of course, anyone who hates science, including the theory of evolution (or even heliocentrism), is going to jump on this and claim that "science" itself is racist, and that anyone who puts any stock into science is racist. This seems silly to anyone who actually understands science and the scientific method, because we know that just because a reknowned scientists claims something is true, that doesn't make it true-- we need evidence, review, and concurrence (other scientists agreeing it's true). But that won't stop the anti-scientists, the anti-evolutionists, from claiming that Watson's statements prove that atheists, scientists, and skeptics are all racist, and that everyone should drop to their knees this instance and accept Jesus Christ as their Personal Lord and Savior. Ridiculous, really, but it makes sense when you consider their mentality. The counter argument creationists and other anti-science persons present to the scientific method is argumentum ad verecundiam: appeal to authority. It's the same reasoning they use in perpetuating the myth that Charles Darwin recanted on his deathbed. This myth for creationists implies that they regard science as an appeal to authority; they seem to believe that scientists don't support scientific theories because of their validation, evidence, review, etc., but that scientists hold their views because of the weighty authority of the original theorist. This, of course, is quite far from the truth; as if Galileo's recantation of the motion of the planets under threat of torture somehow makes geo-centrism true.
Current scientific thought disagrees with Watson's baseless and offensive assertions. There is zero reason to suppose that blacks and other racial minorities are any less intelligent than whites are. It's as if the good doctor is completely ignorant of the accomplishments of George Washington Carver, W.E.B. Dubois, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King (Jr.), Benjamin O. Davis (senior and junior), Thurgood Marshall, Malcolm X, H. Rap Brown, Colin Powell, Edward Brock, Lewis Latimer, Mark Dean, Daniel Hale Williams, the Infidel Guy, and others.
Watson, you're just a racist, sexist prick.
Technorati Tags: james watson, rosalind franklin, dna, racism, race, intelligence
I'm curious as to what methods (if any) Watson used to determine the level of general intelligence between races. There is no reliable means by which to quantify intelligence. Even just defining intelligence is enough of an ordeal; not to mention the criticism that IQ tests generate among the scientific community (which, by the way, show no significant difference between white test takers and black test takers). And there is certainly no means by which to conclude that there is any correlation between race and intelligence.
The problem is that Watson doesn't cite any of his sources or explain how he comes to his conclusions. As Keith Vaz (of the Home Affairs Select Committee) puts it, Watson's comments are "baseless, unscientific, and extremely offensive..." They're his own personal prejudices, not backed whatsoever with any scientific findings. But this shouldn't be totally surprising, coming from Dr. Watson. His sexist attitude is just short of infamy, having completely mistreated Rosalind Franklin in his book The Double Helix and just short of completely stealing her remarkable work and leaving her uncredited. This, of course, without mention of Dr. Watson's previous racist commentary, when he suggested (without conclusive evidence) that black men have stronger libidos than whites.
Of course, anyone who hates science, including the theory of evolution (or even heliocentrism), is going to jump on this and claim that "science" itself is racist, and that anyone who puts any stock into science is racist. This seems silly to anyone who actually understands science and the scientific method, because we know that just because a reknowned scientists claims something is true, that doesn't make it true-- we need evidence, review, and concurrence (other scientists agreeing it's true). But that won't stop the anti-scientists, the anti-evolutionists, from claiming that Watson's statements prove that atheists, scientists, and skeptics are all racist, and that everyone should drop to their knees this instance and accept Jesus Christ as their Personal Lord and Savior. Ridiculous, really, but it makes sense when you consider their mentality. The counter argument creationists and other anti-science persons present to the scientific method is argumentum ad verecundiam: appeal to authority. It's the same reasoning they use in perpetuating the myth that Charles Darwin recanted on his deathbed. This myth for creationists implies that they regard science as an appeal to authority; they seem to believe that scientists don't support scientific theories because of their validation, evidence, review, etc., but that scientists hold their views because of the weighty authority of the original theorist. This, of course, is quite far from the truth; as if Galileo's recantation of the motion of the planets under threat of torture somehow makes geo-centrism true.
Current scientific thought disagrees with Watson's baseless and offensive assertions. There is zero reason to suppose that blacks and other racial minorities are any less intelligent than whites are. It's as if the good doctor is completely ignorant of the accomplishments of George Washington Carver, W.E.B. Dubois, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King (Jr.), Benjamin O. Davis (senior and junior), Thurgood Marshall, Malcolm X, H. Rap Brown, Colin Powell, Edward Brock, Lewis Latimer, Mark Dean, Daniel Hale Williams, the Infidel Guy, and others.
Watson, you're just a racist, sexist prick.
Technorati Tags: james watson, rosalind franklin, dna, racism, race, intelligence
Powered by ScribeFire.
Labels: dna, intelligence, james watson, racism, rosalind franklin, science
posted by squarecircle at
1:33 AM
6 Comments:
Watson isn't the first to bring this up. "The Bell Curve", a controversial work on class and intelligence, devoted a chapter to the correlation between race and intelligence, and seemed to come to similar conclusions. The psychometric community, of course, immediately came out in opposition to the theory.
The point is, this sort of thinking is unfortunately present even among experts in the field. There is not much merit to it, but it somehow keeps popping up.
Blacks just happen to score the lowest on all standardized tests, out of all minorities, even those who are non-English speaking. What an unfortunate coincidence. How very, very, unfortunate since it has nothing to do with their lower IQs, which of course they don't have. They just don't test well, or something. You can always tell which people are the smartest in a society by observing their breeding habits, and rates of crime and incarceration. Clearly Blacks have all other races beat in that department. But it's not their fault!!! Nothing is!!!
When faced with a data set, the worst thing to do is to jump to a conclusion as you have done, Mr. Anonymous commenter.
Thanks, Anonymous, for backing up your baseless assertions with evidence.
/eyeroll
As with anything 'statistically proven', we need to be cautious about how we choose to interpret the data. It amuses me that most studies are done in the ghettos, where any child may be subject to blatant savagery. What else would a child know than what they were raised to believe, think, or associate with? Race has nothing to do with it. Would an upper class, private school educated white boy have knowledge of where to get drugs? How to push a deal? Probably general, but beyond that, no real inside or 'educated' knowledge. It's the way the child was raised, and the environment that they were raised in. Some claim they don't have a choice (being the parents and their location, morals, values, etc.)... I think in this day and age, you do. You can choose your social status, your location, your mate, your house, your job, your education, and even facial features. There's no real merit to these assertions, and the parents of any race should take soul responsibility for their lack of concern.
"Race" does not exist. You seem more "delusional" than me.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home