|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 29, 2014 15:30:07 GMT 1
Famously, Galileo produced an hypothesis that went against the prevailing scientific orthodoxy and was punished for it
Couldn't happen now , could it?
Oh yes it could!
Oh yes it has!
Possibly the most influential scientific orthodoxy today (because it is an orthodoxy that opens so many doors to so much treasure) is the AGW orthodoxy, and indeed we have seen renowned scientists shunned by the 'scientific community' for speaking out against that orthodoxy
But one of the most pr-eminent scientists of the 20C has also suffered the same fate
Dr James Watson the joint discoverer of the structure of DNA (some believe this to be the greatest scientific discovery of the 20C)is reported as having fallen on hard times and is about to sell his Nobel Prize medal(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/11257066/James-Watson-to-sell-Nobel-prize-medal-he-won-for-double-helix-discovery.html)
Nothing to do with AGW, but that even more sacrosanct subject, race He made an hypothesis that the black races are, on average of lower intelligence than other races
For that hypothesis he has lost jobs and been sacked from the boards of companies
How about you? Do you believe that science should be free to make any reasonable hypothesis, or do you side with the Catholic Dogs of God that believed in punishing scientists that did not accord with the received scientific wisdom?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 30, 2014 8:59:46 GMT 1
Careful Nay. The majority of posters on this board (they like the R4 bit, not so approving of the Science part) have decreed that there is no such thing as race. Eppur si muove won't save you from their handbags.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Dec 1, 2014 15:31:02 GMT 1
I definitely like the science bit as well as the radio 4 bit. That is why I asked for a scientific definition of the meaning of race, in the discussion you are alluding to, and you could not provide one.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 2, 2014 11:56:32 GMT 1
To be honest, I think even if there was compelling scientific evidence that certain ethnic groups were inherently of lower average intelligence than other ethnic groups, it would be so politically unacceptable that it would always be disputed. There is always going to be a range of intelligence within any ethnic group so at the end of the day the goal should be to identify bright people and try to make the most of their talents.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 2, 2014 12:15:07 GMT 1
...I asked for a scientific definition of the meaning of race, in the discussion you are alluding to, and you could not provide one. That is the problem. That is why ...I think even if there was compelling scientific evidence that certain ethnic groups were inherently of lower average intelligence than other ethnic groups, it would be so politically unacceptable that it would always be disputed... is irrelevant; there could be no compelling scientific evidence.PA wants to elevate the ramblings of the ageing Watson in a newspaper interview into what in the OP he quaintly calls a Scinetific Hyopothese.But it wasn't; Watson never attempted to submit his hypothesis to any scientific tests at all.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 2, 2014 14:43:52 GMT 1
That is the problem. That is why ...I think even if there was compelling scientific evidence that certain ethnic groups were inherently of lower average intelligence than other ethnic groups, it would be so politically unacceptable that it would always be disputed... is irrelevant; there could be no compelling scientific evidence. How om earth do you know Do you maintain there is no genetic difference between a Chinaman and a Zulu - it is entirely accidental that they happen to have the differences that they do PA wants to elevate the ramblings of the ageing Watson in a newspaper interview into what in the OP he quaintly calls a Scinetific Hyopothese.But it wasn't; Watson never attempted to submit his hypothesis to any scientific tests at all. Two points - 1. How do know that he never applied scientific tests? 2. Does a scientific hypothesis cease to be a scientific hypothesis if it is not tested? Could it simply be You are merely airing your prejudice that there is no difference in the levels of intelligence between races?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 2, 2014 14:58:23 GMT 1
1. How do know that he never applied scientific tests? Because it is inconceivable that he had evidence that would have saved his reputation, and he kept silent about it. Possibly not. But it loses its interest if there's no evidence to support it. What constitutes a hypothesis, anyway? It certainly isn't worth dignifying every off-the-cuff remark you come across with the label. I don't think Watson himself called his remarks a hypothesis, did he? It certainly isn't worth starting a thread about it. To the extent that you are airing your prejudice that there are such differences, do you mean? Isn't that particular prejudice of yours the reason why you started this thread? Anyway, we've gone over all this ground before, as fascinating says. Do you really think you'll get any further this time?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 2, 2014 15:24:15 GMT 1
1. How do know that he never applied scientific tests? Because it is inconceivable that he had evidence that would have saved his reputation, and he kept silent about it. Ah! You mean that you think he applied no tests - you do not know- you are allowing your prejudice to guide your 'knowledge' For example did Eysenck's evidence help him avoid the storm of outrage? Possibly not. But it loses its interest if there's no evidence to support it. Really? Is there a lack of interest in dark matter, dark energy, the existence or non-existence of God What constitutes a hypothesis, anyway? I will leave you to discover that for yourself certainly isn't worth dignifying every off-the-cuff remark you come across with the label. No-one would consider an extempore remark to be construed an an hypothesis I don't think Watson himself called his remarks a hypothesis, did he? It certainly isn't worth starting a thread about it. I have no idea, just as you have no idea what work he had done on the subject before or after making the remark To the extent that you are airing your prejudice that there are such differences, do you mean? You are quite wrong. I have stated , on this subject, that I have no idea whether there are intelligence differencs between races Isn't that particular prejudice of yours the reason why you started this thread? What prejudice - I have not made any judgements on the subject either pre or post (unlike you) Anyway, we've gone over all this ground before, as fascinating says. Do you really think you'll get any further this time? Get further? I just have fun teasing out the prejudices of the soi disant bien pensants!
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 2, 2014 15:30:48 GMT 1
To be honest, I think even if there was compelling scientific evidence that certain ethnic groups were inherently of lower average intelligence than other ethnic groups, it would be so politically unacceptable that it would always be disputed. I agree. It is difficult to see what use such knowledge would be, although the utility - or lack of utility of knowledge should be no bar to pursuing such knowledge There is always going to be a range of intelligence within any ethnic group so at the end of the day the goal should be to identify bright people and try to make the most of their talents. Agree entirely
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 2, 2014 16:04:05 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Dec 2, 2014 17:01:58 GMT 1
That I find quite extraordinary Jean. All my employees are white. Well one is Australian but I will count him in. I have also employed black and mixed race people. Some of the black ones were just as dumb as some of the white ones, and vice versa
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 2, 2014 17:06:47 GMT 1
As someone always says in the course of these discussions: There is always going to be a range of intelligence within any ethnic group so at the end of the day the goal should be to identify bright people and try to make the most of their talents. And that is really the only thing that matters.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Dec 2, 2014 18:23:40 GMT 1
Progenitor A said "Do you maintain there is no genetic difference between a Chinaman and a Zulu - it is entirely accidental that they happen to have the differences that they do"
There are genetic differences between Chinamen and Zulus. There are also genetic differences between Zulus and Hutus, and between Irishmen and Slavs, between different families in this country, between males and females, and between individuals. What's your point?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 2, 2014 20:11:57 GMT 1
I have just noticed this: ...I have stated , on this subject, that I have no idea whether there are intelligence differencs between races... If this were indeed true, PA would have hastened to distance himself from Nick's post, where he suggests we are dealing here with something quite settled: Careful Nay.... Eppur si muove won't save you... By the time he muttered those those words, Galileo's hypothesis (which had got him into so much trouble with the orthodoxy of his day) was no mere hypothesis, but had been thoroughly proved.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 2, 2014 21:27:30 GMT 1
Progenitor A said "Do you maintain there is no genetic difference between a Chinaman and a Zulu - it is entirely accidental that they happen to have the differences that they do" There are genetic differences between Chinamen and Zulus. There are also genetic differences between Zulus and Hutus, and between Irishmen and Slavs, between different families in this country, between males and females, and between individuals. What's your point? Mypoint is that Jean maintains that 'race' is fuzzy and non-scientific. If it can be discriminated through genetics hen it is entirely scientific
|
|