The easiest way for these race realists to back up their claims would be to use the data from the 1 million plus Human g
-
micCee — 9 years ago(February 15, 2017 05:14 AM)
Watson was blackballed, to the extent where he resorted to selling his Nobel Prize. And it was because it was considered heresy in science not to subscribe unquestioningly to the notion that the average IQ is consistent across all racial and ethnic groups, not to mention the inane notion that it's impossible to measure intelligence in any meaningful sense because all tests are 'culturally biased'.
Making controversial comments should not cause an academic to lose their livelihood. Especially not a scientist, given that science is not supposed to be beholden to a particular political worldview and is not only supposed to publish studies which corroborate that.
Would it get some wind for the sailboat? Would it get the railroad for these workers? -
YouMightRabbitYouMight — 9 years ago(February 15, 2017 05:45 AM)
Nope, he wasn't "blackballed". People not wanting to host his lectures is not "blackballing" They don't want to host yours either.
In 2014, he decided to auction off his Nobel prize medal in view of his diminished income after the 2007 incident and to use part of the funds raised by the sale to support scientific research.
a mea culpa stunt. And it was returned to him.
He was just saying things the felt - similar to the way you guys do it.
His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.
Watson has repeatedly supported genetic screening and genetic engineering in public lectures and interviews, arguing that stupidity is a disease and the "really stupid" bottom 10% of people should be cured. He has also suggested that beauty could be genetically engineered, saying in 2003
While speaking at a conference in 2000, Watson had suggested a link between skin color and sex drive, hypothesizing that dark-skinned people have stronger libidos. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English Patient."
"Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them."
The entire concept of using the very unreliable indicator of anything other than what you can already see shows, skin color, shows that he's picked up something, along with his other public boneheaded statements.
He's kind of a smart total idiot.
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000108/thread/264797435?d=264985250#264985250
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000108/thread/265217885?d=265458030#265458030 -
micCee — 9 years ago(February 16, 2017 01:52 AM)
Nope, he wasn't "blackballed". People not wanting to host his lectures is not "blackballing"
They didn't want to host his lectures, because a Nobel prize meant nothing if he wasn't going to keep the lecture theatre a 'safe space' and eschew controversial areas of inquiry.
Would it get some wind for the sailboat? Would it get the railroad for these workers? -
YouMightRabbitYouMight — 9 years ago(February 16, 2017 03:37 AM)
He shouldn't have been such a virtue-signalin' brownie-loving SJW cuck. He should have suicided in front of those blackballers like any true liberal would.
Nope, he wasn't "blackballed". People not wanting to host his lectures is not "blackballing" They don't want to host yours either.
In 2014, he decided to auction off his Nobel prize medal in view of his diminished income after the 2007 incident and to use part of the funds raised by the sale to support scientific research.
a mea culpa stunt. And it was returned to him.
He was just saying things the felt - similar to the way you guys do it.
His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.
Watson has repeatedly supported genetic screening and genetic engineering in public lectures and interviews, arguing that stupidity is a disease and the "really stupid" bottom 10% of people should be cured. He has also suggested that beauty could be genetically engineered, saying in 2003
While speaking at a conference in 2000, Watson had suggested a link between skin color and sex drive, hypothesizing that dark-skinned people have stronger libidos. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English Patient."
"Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them."
The entire concept of using the very unreliable indicator of anything other than what you can already see shows, skin color, shows that he's picked up something, along with his other public boneheaded statements.
He's kind of a smart total idiot.
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000108/thread/264797435?d=264985250#264985250
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000108/thread/265217885?d=265458030#265458030 -
moonunit-00839 — 9 years ago(February 14, 2017 12:23 PM)
My 'theory' is the null hypothesis, there's no difference in the genetic factors that contribute to IQ between geographical populations. It's up to the race realist to confirm the hypothesis that there is a difference and so far they have failed miserably.
One hallmark of a good scientist is curiosity. You have NONE. You are the least curious person in this thread. Even if we accepted your outlandish idea that genes must be responsible for every aspect of our biology below the neck and none of it above by default, that still would not exonerate your lack of curiosity or your assertion of confidence in your "theory", which by the way is fringe. You're not even familiar with the subject enough to know your opponent's arguments or that the debate is generally over the DEGREE of heritability. It's not up to anyone to do anything, but don't act like you'd greenlight an investigation into race and intelligence and risk an unpalatable result for no good reason. Best to keep us in the dark. But you're not going to convince a single person who doesn't already worship at the alter of secular humanism. Hate to break it to you but equality doesn't exist anywhere in nature. -
Sir_Digby_Chicken_Ceasar — 9 years ago(February 15, 2017 05:37 PM)
Having a quick scan through these few posts, I think you should read Guns, Germs and Steel. Very good book.
I doubt Ruth would agree that genes control everything below the neck - height is influenced by genetics, but if a child is malnourished his genes won't make him grow. Presumably you do agree that environment can influence intelligence, since you suggest finding somewhere where people of different races share a similar environment. Surely you acknowledge how difficult it would be to control for environment in these kind of investigations.
Anyway, Ruth asked me to comment on the null hypothesis and the scientific method. I'm not sure you don't understand it because you haven't really commented on what she's said. "No relationship" is the null hypothesis here, just as "no relationship" between the stars at the moment of our birth and our personality would be the null hypothesis when talking about astrology. Surely you can see how foolish it would be for someone to take the attitude "star signs predict the future - prove me wrong." -
RedBaroness1966 — 9 years ago(February 16, 2017 08:57 AM)
I wasn't really serious but it was the misunderstanding of my point about the Null hypothesis and them thinking this = lazy science. You're spot on about genes and environment, it's not an either/or answer and as far as I know genes are responsible for a pretty high percentage of your IQ, that's not the argument though and that's what they don't seem to understand.
I think we've talked about Jared Diamond before, his books really are worth reading.
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England. -
Sir_Digby_Chicken_Ceasar — 9 years ago(February 16, 2017 04:02 PM)
My Mum's a teacher of year 1 or 2 (can't remember) and tells me there's a huge difference in children who went to pre-school and those who didn't. I mean, when you think of everything middle class parents do to support their child's education - extra tuition, museum trips etc - and see how that's reflected in exam results it's difficult to deny the influence on environment on intelligence. I know nothing about how much is genes and how much environment, but it seems intuitive to me that environment plays a big part.
-
moonunit-00839 — 9 years ago(February 14, 2017 12:11 PM)
Why is this area of inquiry the singular exception to the rule that evidence is required to bolster the theoretical framework?
This is more common than you think, in every area of biology. For instance, there's never been a study where one group of people eat genetically modified soybeans, and another group eats regular soybeans, and then they have their health markers compared. In fact, scientists claim this would be "unethical". You can't even imagine how they worked this one out. You see, the GMOs are thought to be a potentially harmful intervention. So we can't study them, and we have to assume they're not harmful. What? Then we sell them as equivalent to the public at large. What a twisted arrangement they worked out for themselves. How many people are even aware that there's never been a study? How many people have instead heard that there's a "mountain of evidence" proving their safety?
Every scientific authority has an entire board for ethics, and it's a literal example of anti-science, where science is considered from the standpoint of sociological impact. Can't study race because it might hurt people's feelings. That's the obvious one. But it's everywhere even if it's just a little spin. Sure we probably all agree Dr Mengele shouldn't secretly be pumping massive amounts of fluoride in our water and measuring docility. In fact ethics boards don't even prevent that kind of thing, publicly, only privately. There's all sorts of Tuskegee type experimentation. But it also goes the other way. We also don't want junk epidemiological research with pal review. That's how you get 100 different diet books with 100 conflicting sets of facts and a nation of obese people.
http://garytaubes.com/2012/03/science-pseudoscience-nutritional-epidemiology-and-meat/
even the better epidemiologists in the world consider this stuff closer to a pseudoscience than a real science. I used as a case study the researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health, led by Walter Willett, who runs the Nurses Health Study. In doing so, I wanted to point out one of the main reasons why nutritionists and public health authorities have gone off the rails in their advice about what constitutes a healthy diet. The article itself pointed out that every time in the past that these researchers had claimed that an association observed in their observational trials was a causal relationship, and that causal relationship had then been tested in experiment, the experiment had failed to confirm the causal interpretation i.e., the folks from Harvard got it wrong. Not most times, but every time. No exception. Their batting average circa 2007, at least, was .000.
Now its these very same Harvard researchers Walter Willett and his colleagues who have authored this new article claiming that red meat and processed meat consumption is deadly; that eating it regularly raises our risk of dying prematurely and contracting a host of chronic diseases. Zoe Harcombe has done a wonderful job dissecting the paper at her site. I want to talk about the bigger picture (in a less concise way).
This is an issue about science itself and the quality of research done in nutrition. Those of you who have read Good Calories, Bad Calories (The Diet Delusion in the UK) know that in the epilogue I make a point to say that I never used the word scientist to describe the people doing nutrition and obesity research, except in very rare and specific cases. Simply put, I dont believe these people do science as it needs to be done; it would not be recognized as science by scientists in any functioning discipline.
Science is ultimately about establishing cause and effect. Its not about guessing. You come up with a hypothesis force x causes observation y and then you do your best to prove that its wrong. If you cant, you tentatively accept the possibility that your hypothesis was right. Peter Medawar, the Nobel Laureate immunologist, described this proving-its-wrong step as the the critical or rectifying episode in scientific reasoning. Heres Karl Popper saying the same thing: The method of science is the method of bold conjectures and ingenious and severe attempts to refute them. The bold conjectures, the hypotheses, making the observations that lead to your conjectures thats the easy part. The critical or rectifying episode, which is to say, the ingenious and severe attempts to refute your conjectures, is the hard part. Anyone can make a bold conjecture. (Heres one: space aliens cause heart disease.) Making the observations and crafting them into a hypothesis is easy. Testing them ingeniously and severely to see if theyre right is the rest of the job say 99 percent of the job of doing science, of being a scientist.
The problem with observational studies like those run by Willett and his colleagues is that they do none of this. Thats why its so frustrating. The hard part of science is left out and they skip straight to the endpoint, insisting that their interpretation of the -
RedBaroness1966 — 9 years ago(February 14, 2017 01:42 PM)
I know you're the village idiot but even you could have read the preceding sentence
The easiest way for these race realists to back up their claims would be to use the data from the 1 million plus Human genomes that have been sequenced.
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England. -
cyberpunk-fan — 9 years ago(February 15, 2017 05:56 PM)
Honestly, posters like him just scare me. He exhibits no sign of even the most basic human warmth or decency. He's just straight-up evil. There's no other word for it. Winning an argument is a secondary concern for him. And he mainly seems to get off on hurting people. It's actually kind of creepy.