41–50 of 148 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Imagine if it was true. Would you be able to publish it? Would you be able to write a grant to get funds investigating it?
>A less-intelligent population has conspired to control the activities of an institution in which they are famously underrepresented (even when considering their status as a numerical minority).
>Investigations have been funded and actually taken place in the past, with the results being inconclusive, or unremarkable, or having falsified the hypothesis.
>Suggesting such investigations reflects a misunderstanding of the capabilities of genetic studies as they currently exist. They will not be undertaken because they're fundamentally incapable of answering the question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Social construct != not real™. A king is only a social construct. One can still order your head cut off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
I think you misunderstood. In referring to "truth", I wasn't addressing the veracity of Watson's statements (which, however you come down on that, were objectively racist, in the sense of making judgments based on race). I was talking about his impropriety, the truth of which even TFA admits (even if it emphasizes his attempts to later "correct" the record). Watson used a colleague's work in a way that appears less t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Please then provide some references to the e literature you’ve read supporting your claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof as the saying goes.
And if you are curious about the relationship between IQ and genetics this Wikipedia page has a ton of cited research: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
Also I don't think I'm the one making extraordinary claims here...
> 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…
I believe that Franklin thought the DNA would be a triple helix like Pauling, not a double helix. And this is where Watson and Crick won out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you misunderstood. In referring to "truth", I wasn't addressing the veracity of Watson's statements (which, however you come down on that, were objectively racist, in the sense of making judgments based on race). I was talking about his impropriety, the truth of which even TFA admits (even if it emphasizes his attempts to later "correct" the record). Watson used a colleague's work in a way that appears less t…
He was not judging based on race, he was asserting that other attributes are correlated with race.