Dr Watson

Dr Watson

Right or wrong?

did he have any statistics to back up his statement?

Yes, however the controversy arises in whether the statistics have been corrupted by environment.

The question isn't whether it was "scientifically unethical and unjustifiable" but whther it was scientifically incorrect.

I haven't seen the numbers, and I don't know, but Crick and Watson were two of the great scientists of the 20th century, and I would imagine that Watson can spot a bad statistic from a good statisitic.

Either way, I think the science museum have got it wrong, and the universities have got it right:

Going to try and get to this

do you believe that scientists are beyond the moral clauses that bind the rest of society?

From what I've heard I don't think this is a moral argument.

Either there is a statistical link between african/western 'race' and intelligence (and there is no good way to measure intelligence) or there is not. If there is, then it is not immoral to report it. If there is not a link then he is wrong, his numbers will (definitely) be scrutinised and he will be discredited.

I hope he is wrong, but I can't imagine that he has been stupid enough to do so.

I'm an ashkenazi jew... what are your thoughts on men with high iq's?

the results which scientists publish have greatt influence on the modern world... if you have a racist spouting that companies should be wary of employing "the darkie" - it's going to have an effect.

it's like someone just ripped my heart out

I think that free speech is what saves us from totaliatarianism. He should be allowed to say what he thinks to be true and others who think he is wrong can then refute his science with evidence to the contrary.
Banning him plays into the hands of racists because it lets them off the hook. they can claim that a nobel prize winner says that whites are superior without challenge.
they were wrong to ban him

also, it comes down to the meaning behind what he said - did he say it because he his personal feelings or strictly from a scientist reporting his findings

either way, people from both sides of the fence will use what he's said as ammunition to further their own arguements.

GO ON DOC

but on a serious note i do think he is talking a load of pish posh

what if science can't refute it?

You can't prove or disprove a G-d, there's a high chance you can't prove or disprove people of african descent are genetically inferior when it comes to intelligence... However presenting such a theory can have a huge influence on individuals.

Don't forget it was this "science" that the Holocaust was born from... irresponsible science can lead to genocide.

Read/watch Guns Germs and Steel (Jared Diamond).

That is all

well if the debate is banned then it just goes underground. If it can't be disproved , it can't be proved either so it won't make any difference

You can never be certain about anything but you can work out probabilities. In most science, we take 95% likelihood as being 'significant', in physics/genetics they use a lot more than that.

If he has used two large randomly selected otherwise matched groups differing only in race and he has a validated way of measuring intelligence for both and finds a significant difference then that is valid, and he's quite entitled to report it.

As far as I know there aren't any good measures of intelligence that work across cultures though - tests like 'who is the prime minister' are pointless if you haven't been exposed to British/world news.

That's why I think he's wrong, but I have no idea how he's done it so I will reserve judgement for now.