Racism

It's not a bottle, man.

It's a magazine or something. Look at it.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Oh c'mon AC, admit it, you think he's intelligent just as much as I do, besides hes done the research...you haven't.

No, I don't. I think he's obviously qualified as a scientist, this doesn't make him intelligent. Though even then, it's up for debate if he's making comments like that.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
You want proof?

Shall I begin a thread discussing the topic with a poll asking that very question? Cause you'd find your proof there...

You have no idea just how badly you can rig polls online, do you? Internet proxies work wonders for that.

Furthermore, it would never proof that "most" white people, all over the world, believe black people are less intelligent.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

No, I don't. I think he's obviously qualified as a scientist, this doesn't make him intelligent. Though even then, it's up for debate if he's making comments like that.

-AC

Do you actually have a basis for that? Right or wrong- and his comments have become clarified more recently- he is working from scientific basis.

He has to be likewise countered, not simply refuted with no backing for that refuation given.

That;s why stopping him speaking is idiocy. You never take on ideas like this by forbidding their expresssion. This is not hate speech, it's not based on religion or artifical ideas of superiority. If it is wrong, it is based on spurious science, and that being the case it must be shown to be wrong in informed debate, not knee jerk reactions like those that have been made in this case.

Much of the reaction has been based on people not wanting it to be true, not upon any intelligent analysis on whether it is or not. That's very dangerous. The Science Museum should know better.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Do you actually have a basis for that? Right or wrong- and his comments have become clarified more recently- he is working from scientific basis.

He has to be likewise countered, not simply refuted with no backing for that refuation given.

That;s why stopping him speaking is idiocy. You never take on ideas like this by forbidding their expresssion. This is not hate speech, it's not based on religion or artifical ideas of superiority. If it is wrong, it is based on spurious science, and that being the case it must be shown to be wrong in informed debate, not knee jerk reactions like those that have been made in this case.

Much of the reaction has been based on people not wanting it to be true, not upon any intelligent analysis on whether it is or not. That's very dangerous. The Science Museum should know better.

This'd be more relevant if I said the man deserved to have his tongue cut out or his freedom of speech taken away, which I didn't.

My point was that him having attained an academic status does not simply afford him the accolade of being a generally intelligent man. My basis for that is the fact that academic success does not equal intelligence, as this site can prove.

-AC

Your point I believe was that he was unintelligent.

Well the latter half of my statement was aimed at the real life reaction against him, not what you said.

I think his previous contributions make him a better candidate than most for being considered intelligent.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Your point I believe was that he was unintelligent.

It was that he made an unintelligent statement until it is proven otherwise, in my opinion, and as an aside, him being a scientist doesn't make him intelligent.

You suggested his place in the field makes him so by default, it doesn't.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It was that he made an unintelligent statement until it is proven otherwise, in my opinion, and as an aside, him being a scientist doesn't make him intelligent.

You suggested his place in the field makes him so by default, it doesn't.

-AC

Your misinterpreting me, but thats OK, his position doesn't make him intelligent by default, but he has that position and is highly regarded by his peers, thus he must be intelligent.

Oh, how do you know his statement was unintelligent, maybe it has been proven correct, just because it isn't accepted. Galileo and the Sun/Earth relationship might have been seen as unintelligent at the time but they were proven to be correct scientifically...therefore intelligent.

Well in all fairness he feels he has proved it. More accurately that such proof exists.

Even more accurately that proof exists for what he was actually trying to say, which as I say he has clarified since that interview.

Then I may have missed that.

There's factual proof that black people are less intelligent?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Your misinterpreting me, but thats OK, his position doesn't make him intelligent by default, but he has that position and is highly regarded by his peers, thus he must be intelligent.

Not at all, that's assumption because he's in a certain position. I'm not saying he isn't generally an intelligent man, I'm saying the qualifying criteria for being such isn't as easy as you feel it is.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Oh, how do you know his statement was unintelligent, maybe it has been proven correct, just because it isn't accepted. Galileo and the Sun/Earth relationship might have been seen as unintelligent at the time but they were proven to be correct scientifically...therefore intelligent.

You are misusing the word "Intelligent", that's your problem there. Something being proven correct doesn't make the initial theory intelligent. It makes is correct, it makes it accurate...nothing more.

Him being "intelligent" and making a correct analysis are not intrinsic. You can be either without doing both.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then I may have missed that.

There's factual proof that black people are less intelligent?

Not at all, that's assumption because he's in a certain position. I'm not saying he isn't generally an intelligent man, I'm saying the qualifying criteria for being such isn't as easy as you feel it is.

You are misusing the word "Intelligent", that's your problem there. Something being proven correct doesn't make the initial theory intelligent. It makes is correct, it makes it accurate...nothing more.

Him being "intelligent" and making a correct analysis are not intrinsic. You can be either without doing both.

-AC

whats intelligent in your definition

Well, I feel the issue is in this 'less intelligent' term that has been given, which does not exactly fit the issue. not that he helpoed with his comment about black employees.

But some quotes from him since then which may be helpful:

-

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief".

-

"We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things... The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity.

"It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science. To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers."

I don't think the person himself is racist, but his comments about black employees is definately racist.

Intelligence is something that I suppose is hard to define, but excelling in a chosen academic field does not make you intelligent, it makes you academically successful.

People respected and held in high regard by your peers does not make you intelligent, it makes you acclaimed.

People are often so ego-centeric that they judge "intelligence" based on how they perceive themselves. Like certain people here feel they are really smart, and as a result, highly praise people they believe to be smarter than them.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, I feel the issue is in this 'less intelligent' term that has been given, which does not exactly fit the issue. not that he helpoed with his comment about black employees.

But some quotes from him since then which may be helpful:

-

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief".

-

"We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things... The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity.

"It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science. To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers."

Right, so where's his basis that black people are less intelligent than white people?

-AC

People respected and held in high regard by your peers does not make you intelligent, it makes you acclaimed.

Why is he acclaimed? We can assume this because he is intelligent.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Why is he acclaimed? We can assume this because he is intelligent.

You can, I can't, I'm not that presumptuous.

I will assume it's because he is very knowledgeable in his field, which, again, does not necessarily mean he is intelligent.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Right, so where's his basis that black people are less intelligent than white people?

-AC

Where's your basis that that is the issue?

Can you even define what you mean by that question? He certainly never said anything so straightforward.

Africa is definately the worst continent. However, black people outside of Africa are better than a lot of white people. I think it's more to do with money.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Where's your basis that that is the issue?

Can you even define what you mean by that question?

If he has never implied that this is the case, then fair enough.

If his research is simply to do with finding out why some excel at things others do not, then fair enough.

If he did make that statement, then it's a stupid one.

-AC

Well, there is implied and there is inferred. What he was saying and what people thought he was saying may well be different things. His comment about employees certainly suggested he may have meant less intelligent, though the only terminology he has ever directly used is 'different' rather than 'less'.

Regardless, hs is eminent, qualified and successful enough of an expert in his field that his comments always deserve consideration and I would certainly be interested to know about the evidence underpinning it.

However this seems to be very hard to find. Unfortunately this thread has assumed he meant IQ testing, which then diverted into an entirely pointless discussion o the value of IQ tests which was a waste of time as, as far as can be made out, I cannot see any reason to think they are relevant at all to what is being talked about.

But the heart of the matter is this- Watson, an expert on things genetic, thinks that 'intelligence' (a complicated area) will be demonstrated to be directly influenced by genetic factors within the decade, and that these factors will have a direct relation, due to the evolutionary process, with skin colour. Right or wrong, he certainly has the nous in that area to pronounce upon it and comment upon how things may be if this very much is so. And it is certainly something to consider- what if it IS true that average intelligence can depend on such factors? IF it is true, there's no point running away from it. If it is nonsense, let us show it to be so.

There is a lot of expert testimony to the contrary, of course, and this can be thrown back at him. But there is no point knocking IQ tests when we don't know if that is the issue or talking about cultural factors with black people which also is not the issue.

ush, he directly implies that blacks in general are less intelligent than others, due to seperate evolutionary processes. he clearly states that this difference is genetic and will somehow be proven in a decade.

im not one to kneejerk react over this sort of thing, but he did in fact throw out a baseless and racist hypothesis. his only evidence being that blacks evolved isoltated from other types, which is probably also false.