31–40 of 148 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Schrodinger predicted the double helix structure of DNA decades before it was observed to be fair.
Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, but what's the value of a completely speculative prediction?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quite. It is likely true that deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century science have undermined what's commonly referred to as Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics. Revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of science have cast further doubt on its credibility, and, most recently, feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice, reve…
To be fair, if you want to go drown in the cosmic ocean of unbeing, I don't think anyone, hegemon or no, is stopping you but your own self-imposed linguistic and social structures. It is ultimately an irony that the epistemological position--that Civilization is fundamentally about domination and cannot stand marginalized or dissident narratives--has only and could only flourish under civilizations in their least-con…
A king is only a social construct. One can still order your head cut off.
> Lore has it that the decisive insight for the double helix came when Watson was shown an X-ray image of DNA taken by Franklin — without her permission or knowledge. Known as Photograph 51, this image is treated as the philosopher’s stone of molecular biology, the key to the ‘secret of life’ (not to mention a Nobel prize). In this telling, Franklin, who died of ovarian cancer in 1958 at just 37, is portrayed as a br…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9TUTf4T7cI
what I recall him saying was nothing about Jewishness or women: he says, I think I remember, that Franklin "did not see faces," i.e. he thought she was partially autistic. (go to 35:00 in the talk)
At the time, he was researching the heritability of autism.
That was his explanation for why she didn't enjoy talking to people, especially those who were her rivals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Don’t wait long. Please educate yourself. His claim that “Africans” have inferior intelligence due to their genetics has precisely zero basis in scientific evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the real issue is that her boss shared her data with W&C without her permission.
That's not true. Wilkins had as much right to share that data as Franklin, and everyone seems to forget Raymond Gosling who actually generated the data.
I'll be the one to sacrifice my Internet Points by bringing up the notion that the question of who discovered DNA's structure is not nearly as important as is the question of why the question of who discovered DNA's structure is significant. It is, of course, primarily and famously the specter of the erasure of women from scientifically and socially significant developments, the thematic subject that this article add…
>how can the father of genetic science be wrong about the influence of genetics on society? - while the truth dashes that credibility That's your own biased judgment. Others may perceive what happened as Watson speaking truth to power, and paying the price for it.
> She supposedly sat on the image for months without realizing its significance, only for Watson to understand it at a glance. That's not the lore as I learned it. The lore is that Franklin sat on the data for months before analyzing it (she wanted to collect more data). Then W+C visited her lab and saw the data, but did not instantly understand it. Instead, the lore is that they figured out the structure of the DNA…
Schrodinger predicted the double helix structure of DNA decades before it was observed to be fair.