Deluded/Shunned Scientist?

[Anonymous No.6917938]

Can /sci/ explain their position on James Watson's view on IQ and race; Clearify how a scientist such as Watson can be misguided in his scientific method and Post sources.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html


Videos for time wasting:

[Swedish Doc/ English subtitles]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOnQPXuU81Q

[English Doc]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao8W2tPujeE

[Anonymous No.6917966]

Watson was shunned because he stopped practicing science.

We have data showing that there is a heritable portion to IQ. We have data showing that there are differences in IQ between populations of people. What we do not have is any data linking those two statements. We do not have data showing that the racial IQ gap has a heritable basis.

Anyone making any kind of claim on the issue is not making an evidence-based argument. Watson was shunned because he abused his position of authority to give weight to his opinion.

[Anonymous No.6917976]

Galileo was shunned because he stopped practicing science.

We had data showing that the sun could be at the center of things. We had data showing that some planets did not orbit earth. What we did not have is any data linking those two statements. We did not have data showing that the earth was just a body orbiting around a central star.

Anyone who made any kind of claim on the issue was not making an evidence-based argument. Galileo was shunned because he abused his position of authority to give weight to his opinion.

[Anonymous No.6917979]

>>6917976
uhm... no.

[Anonymous No.6917982]

>>6917979
yes, actually

galileo had no real evidence to claim that the sun was the center of the system

so if your argument applies to watson it applies to galileo equally

[Anonymous No.6917986]

>>6917966
What about adoption studies? Black children in white homes performed worse then their white counterparts. Asian children in white homes performed better then their white counterparts.

[Anonymous No.6918007]

>>6917938

Watson has been an asshole for the past fifty goddamn years. He was being referred to as "the Caligula of biology" back in the fucking 50's. Nobody has ever liked him, and unlike Crick he's done practically no noteworthy research after his work on the structure of DNA, and has been coasting on various professorships and cushy boards ever since.

Good riddance, I hope the door hits him in the ass on his way out of the field.

[Anonymous No.6918009]

>>6917966
wrong, there's plenty of data it's jsut not about IQ, the data is on how families of rich/smart people have rich/smart kids and the inverse for poor/dumb people. The only thing needed is to do a study that randomly samples families and gives them and their kids an IQ test.

[Anonymous No.6918010]

>>6917938
>Can /sci/ explain their position on James Watson's view on IQ and race

He's 100% correct on everything. PC crowd can't stand the truth so they attack him.

[Anonymous No.6918027]

>>6917986
There are studies that show that people who are told they will do worse on a test will doubt themselves and do worse on the test.

Basically it boils down to this:
There is clear genetic difference between peoples living in different parts of the world. Bone structure, skin color, hair, eyelids, etc.

People have been living in mostly closed genetic pools for tens of thousands of years. These breeding pools only really opened up as populations grew due to agriculture, and even then, most people were born in an area, breed with someone born relatively close to them, had children with similar genetics and died. Small nomadic peoples similarly kept closed genetic breeding pools.

To think that there are not heritable differences in different populations is ludicrous, especially those that may have breed with separate hominid species (only Europeans have neanderthal DNA, some Asian tribes may have breed with other hominids who had been present).

However, knowing the political climate of your time, is also important. Saying these things and being shunned by certain groups is to be expected. Even if you have data to back up your claims, through adoption studies, twin studies, population surveys, etc, no one wants to hear it (or at least a certain segment of society would rather ignore data that does not fit their political view points)

[Anonymous No.6918039]

>>6918027
>There are studies that show that people who are told they will do worse on a test will doubt themselves and do worse on the test.
So what you're saying is that there's some white guy who's constantly telling black and mexican kids that they'll do bad on tests?

[Anonymous No.6918065]

>>6918039
>So what you're saying is that there's some white guy who's constantly telling black and mexican kids that they'll do bad on tests?

Oh, so you're a troll, then. Good to know.

[Anonymous No.6918069]

>>6917966
>We do not have data showing that the racial IQ gap has a heritable basis.
What exactly do you mean by this? How could you empirically show a connection between the two? What else could have caused this enormous gap, which seemingly persists even when people of different race share the same population over long periods of time?

To assume a connection between the two is not merely an opinion but the result of inductive reasoning, the closest and likliest logical conclusions.

Also, he was not shunned for statements that are not 100% empirically backed up. All people make those on a daily basis without being shunned. He was shunned because biological disparities among humans are taboo, especially if they are about IQ.

[Anonymous No.6918076]

It is insane to think that intelligence is magically the only thing that is not heritable. The reason people will believe this is because intelligence is the only thing we have over other animals. To say that some groups of people are more intelligent than others is like saying some people are more human than others.

[Anonymous No.6918092]

>>6918076
but people have been told by parents and educators since the day they could speak that it isn't

[Anonymous No.6918094]

>>6918076
world is full of delusional nutjobs who deny any differences among humans. race is a social construct, intelligence is a social construct etc. they're all insane and anti-science.

[Anonymous No.6918106]

>>6917982
>galileo had no real evidence to claim that the sun was the center of the system
bahahahaha. He wrote an entire book detailing the evidence. Get the fuck out retard.

[Anonymous No.6918110]

>>6918106
which wasn't sufficient evidence

having an opinion and writing about it doesn't mean you are right

[Anonymous No.6918111]

>>6917938

>Can /sci/ explain their position on James Watson's view on IQ and race; Clearify how a scientist such as Watson can be misguided in his scientific method and Post sources.

It's the same thing as Linus Pauling and vitamins and Albert Einstein and quantum mechanics. After a while you just go old and flaky.

[Anonymous No.6918121]

>>6918069
induction has no place on science. i can't elaborate because we had long and senseless arguments about this before. read popper for more, i wont reply, sorry

[Anonymous No.6918129]

>>6918111
einstein was right tho

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/

[Anonymous No.6918132]

>>6918110
It wasn't sufficient evidence *for the church's inquisitors* you deceptive little fuck. It's not like they had the same scientific process we have today.

[Anonymous No.6918140]

>>6918132
it wasn't sufficient evidence for anyone

stop getting your history from video games

[Anonymous No.6918144]

>>6918140
>it wasn't sufficient evidence for anyone
Says who? Where are you getting this from?

[Anonymous No.6918145]

>>6917938
I gotta check me out some books about I.Q

[Anonymous No.6918171]

>>6918144
i read

galileo's claim went against both the physics of the time and the cosmology, both of which were pieced together by observation and reason

in addition optics was not particularly understood so the telescopic evidence was also considered unreliable

[Anonymous No.6918175]

>>6918121
It has, now fuck off.

t.Mathematician

[Anonymous No.6918177]

>>6918129
That is Bohm, not Einstein. Einstein only want a local hidden variable and didn't like non-local hidden variables.

[Anonymous No.6918180]

>>6918171
Of course they did, that's what a new theory does, goes against the previous theory. Nothing you've said has shown that Galileo didn't have sufficient evidence or reasoning for his claims. Galileo continued to contribute to science until he died. You are a retard and your analogy was stupid.

[Anonymous No.6918184]

>>6918121
Are you the ironic lowercase guy per chance?

Popper never argued against induction. The entire scientific method is based on inductive reasoning alone, which is why it was attacked. Popper himself defended science against those attacks.

[Anonymous No.6918185]

>>6918180
no it literally went against physics

[Anonymous No.6918198]

>>6918185
No it literally didn't. It went against Aristotlean philosophy and the church's dogma. The reasoning for Galileo's support of Copernicism was completely valid.

[Anonymous No.6918208]

>>6918027
What are you afraid of on an anonymous message board? Watson is an idiot for saying this in the media, but he's not completely wrong. That's my only point.

He's wrong in saying that black people are inferior in general, obviously IQ is a bell curve and many black people will have a higher IQ then the average person. However black people on average simply aren't as intelligent as other races. That statement holds up to scrutiny, look at any standardized test results and look at the state of black culture. It's pretty shit, bro.

[Anonymous No.6918213]

>>6918065
So you're a butthurt shitlib then, good to know.

[Anonymous No.6918214]

>>6918094
Including a fuckton of people on /sci/.

Lots of butthurt ITT, lots of baseless denialism.

[Anonymous No.6918217]

>>6918213

/pol/ pls go, stop trying to use science to push your agenda...

[Anonymous No.6918227]

>>6918065
>>6918213
>>6918217
Stop with the fallacies. They don't belong on /sci/.


To those refuting a connection between racial IQ gap and heritage, answer my questions in this post >>6918069 instead of throwing childish insults at each other.

[Anonymous No.6918230]

>>6918198
you don't know what you're talking about you're just throwing out words

>It went against Aristotlean philosophy
no it went against aristotlean physics

>and the church's dogma
no, church dogma was only about matters of faith and morals, the church always ceded on matters of science

if galileo had shown that he was right the church would have accepted it (he was even sent a letter that said this)

he didn't

now, would you care to explain what his reasoning was and how that reasoning was valid in the face of the scientific understanding of the time?

[Anonymous No.6918251]

>>6918230
>no it went against aristotlean physics
Aristotlean physics IS a philosophy you fucking dumbass. I'm glad you took some time to google before you replied but you should really read those pages before you make yourself look even more foolish.

>no, church dogma was only about matters of faith and morals, the church always ceded on matters of science
Confirmed for idiot. The church was heavily invested in Aristotlean and Ptolemaic philosophy as well as the position that the Bible described a geocentric universe. The church labelled any theory that disagreed with these as heresy. Galileo proved Venus orbited the sun but this evidence was ignored:

>My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth.

>now, would you care to explain what his reasoning was and how that reasoning was valid in the face of the scientific understanding of the time?
It's simple. Galileo used the most advanced telescope of the time to observe the phases of Venus. These corresponded to a an orbit around the sun. The astronomers of the day that checked these observations agreed with them, but the church forced them to argue against heliocentrism. He also discovered moons orbiting Jupiter, further disproving the geocentric model.

[Anonymous No.6918277]

>>6917976
>Galileo was shunned because he stopped practicing science.
That's so fucking stupid I can't tell if it's a troll or legitimate retardation.

[Anonymous No.6918284]

>>6918010
>He's 100% correct on everything. PC crowd can't stand the truth so they attack him.
This. Science is almost never politically correct because if reality were politically correct it wouldn't be an "issue" which people obsess over making it political to begin with. The man proved intellectual differences between races and sexes and the liberals ostracized him for it. The modern liberal is literally as bad for science as the church was (in fact worse, because the church still kept secret scientific studies underway for their own use).

[Anonymous No.6918286]

>>6918251
so far you've called me a retard, a deceptive little fuck, stupid, foolish, and idiot, and a dumbass, and you've implied i just googled my ideas.

you are condescending in the extreme and frankly i don't have much time for people like you.

>Aristotlean physics IS a philosophy you fucking dumbass.
aristotle wrote a book called physics about physics. i'm sure you've heard of it.

>Galileo proved Venus orbited the sun
great.

now explain to me how proving venus orbits the sun proves that the earth orbits the sun.

hint: it doesn't. neither do moons orbiting jupiter show that the earth revolves around the sun.

in fact it doesn't matter because even if mercury and venus orbit the then current cosmological model was not the copernican model but the tychonic model (which is another thing i'm sure you've heard of)

in this model, the mathematical simplicity of the copernican model is preserved, as is the physics (yes, physics) of the time

to say that galileo was correct on the basis of venus you must prove that venus orbiting the sun must mean that the earth also revolves around the sun, and do so using the then current physics

please demonstrate to me how this is possible, keeping in mind that even the copernican model is wrong (circular orbits)

>>6918277
what is satire

[Anonymous No.6918290]

>>6918284
>This is what /pol/ actually believes

[Anonymous No.6918308]

>>6918251
>fucking dumbass
>before you make yourself look even more foolish
>Confirmed for idiot

Careful, you might cut yourself

[Anonymous No.6918319]

>>6918286
>you are condescending in the extreme and frankly i don't have much time for people like you.
So leave.

>aristotle wrote a book called physics about physics. i'm sure you've heard of it.
Irrelevant. Just because someone called their philosophy physics doesn't mean it has anything to do with science.

>now explain to me how proving venus orbits the sun proves that the earth orbits the sun.
Also irrelevant. Venus's orbit around the sun is evidence for the heliocentric model, the model that the planets revolve around the sun. Where did you suddenly get the idea that Galileo needed to prove the earth revolved around the Sun in order to argue for heliocentrism?

>in fact it doesn't matter because even if mercury and venus orbit the then current cosmological model was not the copernican model but the tychonic model (which is another thing i'm sure you've heard of)
The Tychonic model was a minority position, mainly held by the Jesuits. And you are confusing the Copernican model with geocentrism.

>in this model, the mathematical simplicity of the copernican model is preserved, as is the physics (yes, physics) of the time
Yes, if you knew what the Copernican model was you would be making sense. Claiming Aristotlean "physics" was the science of the time is pure sophistry. Aristotlean "physics" was a philosophy, and non-empirical. It's not surprising that Galileo's observations contradicted it.

>to say that galileo was correct on the basis of venus you must prove that venus orbiting the sun must mean that the earth also revolves around the sun, and do so using the then current physics
More goalpost moving. Galileo falsified geocentrism, and argued the preponderance of evidence supported heliocentrism. Arguing scientifically is not the same thing as proving something. Science doesn't deal in absolute proofs.

[Anonymous No.6918321]

>>6918290
>this is how libtards think they make a point

[Anonymous No.6918323]

>>6918321
>libtard
>This is what /pol/ actually believes

[Anonymous No.6918327]

>>6918323
>they legitimately think this proves a point

[Anonymous No.6918340]

>>6918327
>proves a point
>He still doesn't get that this is mockery and not an argument

[Anonymous No.6918342]

>>6918321
>>6918323
>>6918327
>>6918340
>autism

[Anonymous No.6918348]

>>6917938
Reminder that this is the product of sjw violence against people with differing views. Campuses just don't want to deal with the security issues with letting him speak.


clip related, watson assaulted at athenian university
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B2VaX_jOT8

[Anonymous No.6918358]

>>6917982
>galileo had no real evidence to claim that the sun was the center of the system

I've never seen dumber shit on any science forum than the shit I see here.

Yes, including race "realism."

[Anonymous No.6918369]

>>6917938
Races are social constructs, we're all one in Jesus christ. Hallelujah.

https://answersingenesis.org/racism/are-there-really-different-races/

[Anonymous No.6918376]

>>6917938

[Anonymous No.6918377]

>>6918208
>That statement holds up to scrutiny

No it doesn't. Even ignoring what a flawed measure IQ is, saying that one group has lower than average IQ than another group is essentially meaningless when you control for everything else in the individuals of those groups' lives. Discrimination, minority anxiety, wealth distribution, societal attitudes that you deal with in your everyday life, et cetera - there are countless variables that you haven't controlled for, and science is about accounting for variables.

>>6918069
>All people make those on a daily basis without being shunned.

Not scientists.

[Anonymous No.6918380]

>>6918340
>it still thinks mocking is making a point

[Anonymous No.6918387]

>>6918377
>Discrimination

[Anonymous No.6918392]

>>6918380
>/pol/tards can't read simple sentences apparently

[Anonymous No.6918400]

>>6918319
>oh look i actually can't do it so i'll just stall by claiming the model with overwhelming support was actually a "minority position" and while i'm at it i'll move the goalposts while accusing the other guy of doing it

btw you might want to re-read:
>Watson was shunned because he abused his position of authority to give weight to his opinion.
and consider how it relates to your:
>Arguing scientifically is not the same thing as proving something. Science doesn't deal in absolute proofs.

[Anonymous No.6918406]

>>6918387
I hate affirmative action so much