221–230 of 303 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only thievery here is yours. Just as we are expected to believe that Ada Lovelace invented programming, Hedy Lamarr invented Wi-Fi, and Margaret Hamilton wrote the software for the Apollo missions all by her lonesome, we must believe this, too. None of it is true, and when this is pointed out, the response is frothing accusations of misogyny that you've so aptly demonstrated. Well, froth away. Watson and Crick di…
[flagged]
I took that as an accusation of misogyny and I'm unclear how else it could be interpreted. Watson named her as Dr. R. E. Franklin, so it can't be him that was being impugned.
Please also note the frothy inability to type - have I replicated that?
> don't deem worthy
Deem worthy of what?
You are demonstrating my point perfectly. You have no interest in what these women did (or did not) do, what their achievements actually were (and they certainly had them), they're simply a totem that you elevate beyond reason as proof of what a Very Nice Guy you are.
> as if you have them written down on an enemies list
Is someone able to tell me what about the genetics, race and IQ stuff is backed by evidence and what part is pure prejudice?
Even if there is a connection between skin colour and IQ (which there is not, as far as I know) you'd still need to judge people on their individual merit. It's all about "on average, black people have a lower IQ". Even if true, you can't do anything meaningful with that in any liberal merit-based democracy. White people from rural Alabama might also score lower on IQ tests than white people from NYC. When pressed, even the racist assholes posting in this thread will admit that James Mickens is way smarter than the average white programming/computer scientist (never mind funnier). He certainly is smarter than me and I'm white enough to get sunburns in Ireland.
I would say the entire focus on connection between race and IQ is almost entirely prejudice because it just doesn't matter. Barring than the occasional well-intentioned misguided soul, if you dig in to all the people focused on it then it rarely takes long to find some genuinely racist things well beyond their so-called "just looking at the objective facts".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would you be “snipe”ing like this if a man were plagiarized? When men have had their scientific advances plagiarised, stolen, claimed from them in the same quantity as non-men, sure, but that's like saying "you're complaining that I stole a million pounds but they stole a can of coke!" Nonsense whataboutism.
Tell us about how Hedy Lamarr invented Wi-Fi, how Ada Lovelace was the first programmer, how Margaret Hamilton wrote the software for the moon landings, and then repeat this claim.
(Bonus points if you know even 3 of those without looking them up)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I care. His legacy is tarnished by being a bad human being, when it is pretty easy to be a decent person. It’s worth recognizing the accomplishment without lauding the person. Especially when the accomplishment is built on basically stolen/unacknowledged work. I’d rather have more Rosalynd Franklin in the world than more James Watson.
It was Gosling's photo. Ask yourself why we talk so much about Franklin and so little about Gosling. Perhaps the world is, in fact, NOT as discriminatory against women as you think. (There is also plenty of evidence that Franklin could be quite unpleasant. If that tarnishes Watson, then it certainly also tarnishes her. What is good for the gander is good for the goose.)
He clearly was an exceptional scientist, but also likely an a*hole. Also unfortunately when people get older, many people's negative qualities are amplified. That seem to have happened with Watson and has tarnished his legacy.
Who cares? Lots of assholes have done lots of great things. Some of the most important people in history have been assholes.
I want to use this opportunity to shill possibly the best history of science ever written: The Eighth Day of Creation [1], which describes the history of structural biology, including Watson’s various contributions. He comes across as a precocious asshole, not without talent but with a stronger eye towards self-advancement. [1] https://www.cshlpress.com/default.tpl?cart=17625586661954464...
Oh? Care to reveal your stake in the success of the book?
He clearly was an exceptional scientist, but also likely an a*hole. Also unfortunately when people get older, many people's negative qualities are amplified. That seem to have happened with Watson and has tarnished his legacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it is biological. You can try to obfuscate and use big words all you want, but it is, in fact, biological.
No one said it wasn't biological. Hair color is also biological.
> krapp's comment is what I was reaching for, "Race isn't biological, it's a social and political construct."