Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 148 posts

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#81

Post by dkural »

tpoacher wrote: post #20
underlipton wrote: post #19

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…

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…

Studying, say, the food preferences of snails, is a very roundabout way to dominate society. A lot of the post-structuralist way of thinking comes down to a couple of obvious claims: - "Scientists were part of a society that did Bad Things(tm) like genocide, slavery etc." Yes, indeed they were. Thanks for pointing out. This is not as profound a revelation as you might think. - "Physical reality is just another discourse among many. There's no objective truth." This applies equally to just about any claim, including this second point denying privileged narratives. So why bother having a conversation? It's obviously a self-immolating belief system. There's in fact physical truth and reality. The phenomenon we describe as gravity will be around long after humans are no longer around to contemplate it. Also I'd argue that the post-modern argument is nihilistic. Just because you don't believe in my existence or choose not to articulate it in your "text" doesn't mean I don't exist. If we deny the power of language to represent and communicate reality, all we're left with is raw destructive brute force to decide what is real and who actually exists. Kind of like the USA we are slowly converging upon.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#82

Post by Taywee »

jojobas wrote: post #63
lolinder wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claiming that the skills tested by IQ tests are in part heritable—like height, strength, weight, eye color and every other physical characteristic—is not an extraordinary claim. Indeed, the opposite claim would be more extraordinary. Why should this be the exception to the rule? It would be far more beneficial to equity to push back on the purported implications of this fact than to try to fight a losing battle again…

>The value we place on the skills that IQ tests measure It's not even that. Imagine there is an isolated population on a remote island that is legitimately very low on general intelligence, "nobody can ever learn to count past ten" kinda low, yet undeniably human. What would be a reasonable policy toward such people?

The same as you'd have to the severely mentally impaired in general, I imagine.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#83

Post by WillPostForFood »

lolinder wrote: post #56
underlipton wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No, it's the people who insist that IQ must be the sole example of a physiological characteristic that has no genetic component who feel threatened by the science. To be clear, I fiercely oppose racism in all forms, but the battle should be up against the idea that there's some inherent value in IQ scores, not against the idea that genes play a role in the scores.

the battle should be up against the idea that there's some inherent value in IQ scores

IQ is a predictor of academic achievement, job performance, income, health, and inversely correlates with criminal behavior. But if only we could find some value in it!

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#84

Post by ryan93 »

underlipton wrote: post #65
notsosec wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a false dichotomy. The taboos about races / genetics are largely held and enforced by white people, not (just) by minorities.

In other words, the group that is supposed to be of superior intelligence, and which has the most to gain from a narrative of superiority, maintains, in your view, that they are not superior. Occam's Razor would say that they've come to this conclusion because they've found it to align most neatly with reality.

Or they would lose standing among their peers. All whites aren't in some secret club where we coordinate.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#85

Post by mightyham »

saghm wrote: post #78
mightyham wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the suggestion that IQ was designed to be racist highly unlikely considering that many studies have shown Asians to have higher average IQs than Europeans. Even in regards to SAT testing, Chinese American immigrants are extraordinarily over represented in upper percentiles.

Are you saying you don't think it's likely for the test to be designed to make a certain group perform worse than another as long as some groups outside either of those score better than the group that designed the test? Or that if it was actively designed to make one group perform worse than the one who designed the test, it's not racist because some third group scored even better? Neither of those claims sound part…

Let's put this in the proper context. Many modern studies and analysis show similar disparities in intellectual abilities between ethnicities and races, based on a number of tests designed in the modern day by many different institutions globally. The suggestion that IQ tests are on the whole are a racist ploy is very conspiratorial. Furthermore, it's pretty hard to imagine how one would design visuospatial and pattern matching problems so that they are discriminatory.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#86

Post by robocat »

lolinder wrote: post #54
phs318u wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please then provide some references to the e literature you’ve read supporting your claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof as the saying goes.

Claiming that the skills tested by IQ tests are in part heritable—like height, strength, weight, eye color and every other physical characteristic—is not an extraordinary claim. Indeed, the opposite claim would be more extraordinary. Why should this be the exception to the rule? It would be far more beneficial to equity to push back on the purported implications of this fact than to try to fight a losing battle again…

A controversial 2005 paper https://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jb... claims:

  Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data. They score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average, corresponding to an IQ 112-115. This has been seen in many studies (Backman, 1972; Levinson, 1959; Romanoff, 1976), although a recent review concludes that the advantage is slightly less, only half a standard deviation Lynn (2004).
The controversy is discussed here: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/30/21042733/...

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#87

Post by anonymouskimmer »

unmole wrote: post #80
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there any reason to believe that they would have been more generous in giving credit had the work been from a man? The what-ifs of one specific notable instance doesn't really matter. This is merely being used for illustrative purposes. It is also the case that it is not just women who are denied credit, but until relatively recently it was common practice to not even think to give equal credit to women. > And a…

> This is merely being used for illustrative purposes. Stated more cynically, it's being used to craft a narrative in support of an agenda.

I don't see inductive reasoning used for debate as particularly cynical.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#88

Post by saghm »

mightyham wrote: post #85
saghm wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying you don't think it's likely for the test to be designed to make a certain group perform worse than another as long as some groups outside either of those score better than the group that designed the test? Or that if it was actively designed to make one group perform worse than the one who designed the test, it's not racist because some third group scored even better? Neither of those claims sound part…

Let's put this in the proper context. Many modern studies and analysis show similar disparities in intellectual abilities between ethnicities and races, based on a number of tests designed in the modern day by many different institutions globally. The suggestion that IQ tests are on the whole are a racist ploy is very conspiratorial. Furthermore, it's pretty hard to imagine how one would design visuospatial and patte…

> Let's put this in the proper context. Many modern studies and analysis show similar disparities in intellectual abilities between ethnicities and races, based on a number of tests designed in the modern day by many different institutions globally. The suggestion that IQ tests are on the whole are a racist ploy is very conspiratorial.

The parent comment that original suggested this claim linked to an article tracing the academic influences of the I.Q. test and other similar standardized testing frameworks, and it doesn't seem "very conspiratorial" to me in the absence of any specific critiques.

> Furthermore, it's pretty hard to imagine how one would design visuospatial and pattern matching problems so that they are discriminatory.

Maybe my imagination is more active than yours, but it doesn't seem that hard to imagine for me. Broadly speaking, I'd imagine that the process of coming up with any sort of test like this would consist of the following steps:

    1. Come up with potential questions for the test
    2. Assess people with the test in a controlled environment
    3. Revise the set of questions based on the results of step 2, then repeat steps 2 and 3 until you're satisfied
To tailor the results to a certain group, give the test to both people in and outside of that group in step 2, then in step 3 revise the questions towards the type that the favored group scored better on (e.g. throw out questions that the disfavored group scored better on, come up with more questions similar to the type that the favored group scored better on, etc.).

You wouldn't be guaranteed to find a set of questions that ended up statistically favorable to the favored group, but it certainly doesn't seem very hard to imagine it might work sometimes, and for it to have happened, it only would need to have worked once.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#89

Post by Taywee »

lolinder wrote: post #54
phs318u wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please then provide some references to the e literature you’ve read supporting your claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof as the saying goes.

Claiming that the skills tested by IQ tests are in part heritable—like height, strength, weight, eye color and every other physical characteristic—is not an extraordinary claim. Indeed, the opposite claim would be more extraordinary. Why should this be the exception to the rule? It would be far more beneficial to equity to push back on the purported implications of this fact than to try to fight a losing battle again…

While what you say logically makes sense, it's very difficult to handle the thought for most people. Most people are either racist and disagree with the latter part of what you say, or are anti-racist and reject even the possibility of any intelligence disparity.

I find it uncomfortable, and I personally don't accept it as a fact (there is pretty significant evidence that points at many possible conclusions, as well as many many confounding factors), but I can't, as a reasonable person, reject the possibility.

I would never even voice that opinion in public, though. Even a position like this could make me a social pariah.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#90

Post by jojobas »

lolinder wrote: post #70
jojobas wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you rather go to a 150 IQ doctor or a 90 one? Why?

I would rather ask more questions before deciding on my doctor. How well do they listen to me? Are they willing to give me time, or do they treat their patients as an assembly line? Do they continue to read up on new research, or are they relying on their 30-year-old med school degree? Are they someone that I'd be comfortable talking to about very personal matters? None of these questions have anything to do with IQ,…

Imagine all you know is their IQ and don't deflect.

>None of these questions have anything to do with IQ

They do, big time. Knowing their IQ allows to make a very good guess on who reads more, who would listen and, in general, do their job better.

Post reply on HN