Posted on 10/25/2007 6:46:46 AM PDT by shrinkermd
James Watson said he will quit as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory...
...Mr. Watson, who won the Nobel Prize in 1962 for co-discovering the structure of DNA, told the U.K.'s Sunday times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really." Mr. Watson later apologized for the remarks.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Watson pulled a Don Imus, in my opinion. He said what he said. He believes what he believes. But his quick willingness to shift his stance, to grovel and to apologize are what doomed him. Had he taken a scientific stand and said to his critics, "Prove that I am wrong", then I might have more respect for him.
It helps to be right, and I don't say that Watson was right. But it's also crucial for scientists to speak the truth as they see it. What that means, is that sometimes they are wrong. Watson wasn't willing to go there.
Unlike Galileo, he too quickly stepped up and said, "My conclusions are unpopular? OK, I'll shift my views."
This is what science has come to. Politics is the driving force now. Sad.
Another victory for the new Inquisition.
This is a prime example of why no one should ever apologize for an intellectually defensible statement. No good can come of it. You’ll lose your job and be made an outcast whether you apologize or not. At least Watson and Larry Summers would have maintained their integrity if they had refused to back down. By apologizing they gained nothing, still lost their jobs, and are still being smeared as racist (or sexist, in the case of Summers). By apologizing you do nothing but strengthen the hand of the thought police.
A similar thing happened to Don Imus, though in his case what he said was stupid. He owed the Rutgers basketball ladies an apology. However, that should have been the end of it, and it certainly would have been the end if he had insulted whites, Christians, or someone similarly unprotected by the current “soft totalitarian” political atmosphere. Instead, he went on Sharpton’s show and did the total grovel routine, and still got fired. Admittedly, what he said was stupid and offensive, but was it worthy of a firing, even when he was willing to apologize?
This nonsense will only get worse. We’re already seeing people who don’t approve of homosexuality or “diversity” being sent off for “rehab”. I hate to think of what our nation will be like in fifty years if this keeps up.
Good thing he didn’t say anything bad about Global Warming or he would really be in trouble.
This man may be a genius but he is an idiot. How could anyone in academia believe they could survive such a statement?
Here's my take on it: "Run your mouth and it all goes south."
The first is a racial statement saying that intelligence is linked to race. The second and third are evaluations of the environemnt of black culture and society; we know that in America, sometimes excelling in school is viewed by some as being "too white." (There is hard scientific data that says between three and seven, stimulating parental encouragement actually increases the formation of brain mass. Talk to your kids and encourage theme, they will grow smarter.)
I would have to disagree with any statement that claimed different races are smarter or dumber, but agree that intelligence is a skill that is learned and refined. If you grow up in a country where open gunplay is valued more than debate-team conflict resolution, you may actually BE dumber.
What exactly is “racism.”
He made a mistake by making it an off the cuff thus is so statement. Had he put this issue into the form of a question (as science begins) then he would be on his way to bringing his lab billions in grant dollars. But now the PC inquisitors having waved their tom-tom rattles over their heads will have their way.
Fixed.
It wasn’t so much pointing out that they score lower, it was the implication that this lower score was due to genetics (unfounded, and he admits it), and the direct statement that BECAUSE of this difference there was really ‘no hope for Africa’.
His statements infuriated me.
He is one in a long line of people that shows the Nobel Prize is a total sham.
Unpopular, maybe. But truth nonetheless.
What he said that REALLY got him in trouble is that, in his opinion, because Blacks score lower on I.Q. tests they were incapable of rising from the corruption and poverty and plagues modern day Africa.
Seems logical enough to me. If intelligence is what gets one out of economic straits, then more intelligence increases the likelihood of being freed from poverty and corruption. Conversely, less intelligence reduces that likelihood.
It wasn’t so much pointing out that they score lower, it was the implication that this lower score was due to genetics
I'm always uncomfortable with "implications." Dr. Watson is intelligent enough to express himself clearly if he had a point to make. He doesn't have to rely on vague implications. So I suspect it's just as likely that his "implications" are actually someone else's "inferences." And that is THEIR problem, not his.
... and the direct statement that BECAUSE of this difference there was really ‘no hope for Africa’.
A little strong, perhaps. Hyperbolic? Probably. But certainly reflective of a sentiment, if not an actuality.
Had he instead chosen to fall back on the relentless AIDS situation he may have had a leg to stand on, IMHO.
OTOH, the refusal to do what is necessary to control it isn’t really stupidity, I guess...
One need only look at Zimbabwe and South Africa to see the truth of what you’re saying. Or look at Japan. They were mired in the doldrums for a long time due to isolation and an outmoded feudal system. But less than a century after Perry opened the Japanese ports, Japan was a powerful nation. They were able to defeat Russia in a war, conquer massive China, seize most of East Asia, hit us at Pearl Harbor, and hold their own against us for several months until we were able to turn the tide at Midway. Even then they kept fighting and we had to firebomb one city and nuke two others to finally bring them down.
And within a few short years, Japan was a world economic and intellectual power again.
Is any African country capable of that? They’ve been exposed to Western ideas for quite a while now. Yet their progress seems to be based on how many westerners are present in their countries. Every white westerner in Japan could leave tomorrow and the country would still flourish. But if every westerner were to leave Africa, and no one else were to move in (such as the Chinese), what would happen there? As bad as it is now, imagine what it would be like then.
bump
Good question. It's exactly the same as "fascism", a synonym for "bad". Bad things are wrong, don't you know?!
Don’t you love the Open Mindedness and Free Speech that is allowed at Universities??
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.