Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:25 pm    Post subject: Politicalization of Science ... the case of a DNA pioneer Reply with quote

DNA pioneer James Watson stripped of honours after 'reckless' race remarks
[​IMG]
In 2007, Dr Watson said he was 'inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa'
Nobel Prize-winning DNA scientist James Watson has been stripped of several honorary titles by the laboratory he once headed over his views about intelligence and race.

The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said it was acting in response to remarks he made in a television documentary which aired earlier this month.

The 90-year-old geneticist - one of three who discovered the DNA double helix - had lost his job at the New York laboratory in 2007 for expressing racist views.

But in the new PBS film, American Masters: Decoding Watson, he said his views on intelligence and race had not changed since.

He had told a magazine in 2007 he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" as "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - where all the testing says not really". [....]
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/james-watson-who-discovered-dna-stripped-honorary-titles-suggested-blacks-are-genetically-inferior.685346/
=================================================

Dr James Watson is a nobel-winning scientist who made vitally important discoveries about how DNA works. This work -- done with a partner -- is the foundation of the current efforts to chart the genome. Yet he is not allowed to comment, as an expert on heredity, on race. If he does, the hordes of politically corrected will descend on his with the intention of destroying his life.

Racial hysteria rules!
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Simple fact is, this guy is a racist. No doubt about that.

Also , no doubt the guy did well as a scientist but also a bastard in trying to use DNA to show racism.
Oh well, stripped of all his titles now.
Quote:
My field, human genetics, was founded by another racist, Francis Galton, who sought to demonstrate white British dominance over the colonies using biometrics. He gave birth to eugenics, an endeavour never realised in the UK, but that was broadly supported around the beginning of the 20th century across the political spectrum, from Churchill to Marie Stopes to William Beveridge.
The nicest irony is that genetics – the field he founded and Watson transformed – is precisely the subject that has singularly demonstrated that race as a scientific concept holds no water.

There has never been an honest study that could prove one race was smarter than the other.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal [/quote]

Quote:

That was also the resounding consensus from the scientific community. Geneticist Joseph L. Graves explained in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper at the time that Watson’s beliefs stemmed from some geneticists who believed there were relationships between IQ scores and genetics. But Graves said there is no scientific basis suggesting the two are causally linked, or that IQ scores are even a reliable measure of intelligence. The most “obvious” explanation for differences in IQ tests are environmental factors affecting a person’s upbringing, he added.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/14/father-dna-says-he-still-believes-link-between-race-intelligence-his-lab-just-stripped-him-his-titles/?utm_term=.74e121d1c0d7


You sure back some pretty shady assholes. Hmm..... pause for thinking here. Might explain all that BS you shoot.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

He's foaming again. Here is a Nobel prizewinner in genetics and TC is going to pillory him for wrong-think about ... race?

I hate to tell you this, but repeated studies have shown that there are significant differences in the results of IQ tests by race. There just are. IQ is one of the best predictors of academic success. It might be the best one.

Don't force me to tell you how big the differences are.

This is like the guy who landed a space vehicle on an asteroid only to be shamed and ridiculed world-wide for his choice of shirts. By feminists, who normally end their math education at Grade 10. (Math is part of the patriarchy).

In another case of politicized science ... we have the American Psychology Association saying masculinity is all wrong.

Quote:
APA issues guidelines calling traditional masculinity harmful to men, boys
By Brandon Showalter, CP Reporter | Tuesday, January 08, 2019Facebook Twitter Email Menu Comment

Father and son surfing. | Photo by Filios Sazeides on Unsplash
The American Psychological Association has issued new guidelines spelling out how "traditional masculinity" is "harmful" to men and boys for the purpose of helping the psychologists who work with them. The guidelines have already drawn considerable criticism.

The professional guidelines, which reportedly took 13 years to develop, are the first of their kind that the group has published for clinicians for working with men and boys.

The APA relies on 40 years of research "showing that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly," the January 2019 press release explains.

Among the assertions the APA makes are that "the more men conformed to masculine norms, the more likely they were to consider as normal risky health behaviors such as heavy drinking, using tobacco and avoiding vegetables, and to engage in these risky behaviors themselves."

“What is gender in the 2010s?” Ryon McDermott, a psychologist at the University of South Alabama who helped draft the men’s guidelines asks in the report.

“It’s no longer just this male-female binary.” [....]
https://www.christianpost.com/news/apa-issues-guidelines-calling-traditional-masculinity-harmful-to-men-boys.html


It's hell trying to be a young man these days.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
He's foaming again.

You spelled laughing wrong.
Quote:
Here is a Nobel prizewinner in genetics and TC is going to pillory him for wrong-think about ... race?


Sure! Especially when he uses and manipulates research to bolster his racist (and yours) views .
Two racists, outed right here. Congrats.
Quote:

I hate to tell you this, but repeated studies have shown that there are significant differences in the results of IQ tests by race.

Cite please ! Put up or shut up. Because there aren't any.

Quote:
. IQ is one of the best predictors of academic success. It might be the best one.

Ah old dumbass guy,,,, didnt read huh? I posted this just a bit up..."The most “obvious” explanation for differences in IQ tests are environmental factors affecting a person’s upbringing, he added. "

Quote:

Don't force me to tell you how big the differences are.

Go ahead, I want to see you embarrass yourself once again . This could be fun.

Quote:

In another case of politicized science . of bugs trying to muddy the water because he wants to seem smart ...


Quote:


It's hell trying to be a young man these days.
Actually quite easy.

No for you, its hard, but life has always been hard for people with addictions , stupidity and families who just are dumb.

You sir...take the cake. Captain dumbass .
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you really going to make me talk about IQ tests and race? I mean, the details? Weare going to actually allege that James Watson, one half of the team that figured out a lot about how DNA works, is merely a bigot?

The gentle reader needs not to be reminded that "race" and "skin colour" don't have a one-to-one relationship. Somalis are caucasian, but their skin is dark. In other words, people don't come colour coded.

DNA is what controls heredity and IQ is a characteristic that is heavily influenced by heredity.

It seems almost sacrilegious to take the world of an ignorant refugee from the cubicle world over a Nobel-winning true scientist in his field of expertise. Is TC someone whose opinion can be trusted? Pul-leeze!

Trigger warning: digging into this will take the reader into some unpleasant but factual stuff.

Quote:
The issue of race differences in IQ scores is interesting from a purely
scientific point of view, and it also carries a great deal of political and
moral baggage. Eysenck (p. 12) claimed: “I found it very difficult to
look at the evidence detailed in this book with a detached mind, in
view of the fact that it contradicted certain egalitarian beliefs I had considered almost axiomatic.” It is commendably rational to accept repugnant facts when empirical evidence demands their acceptance. But
maintaining unpleasant doctrines when the evidence does not support
them is no form of rationality; it is mere intellectual masochism—a
form of self-abuse, in the proper sense of that word. In Eysenck's case,
because there were dangerous and reactionary interest groups and
prejudiced individuals all too keen to capitalize on his authoritative endorsement of the hereditarian doctrine for their own sinister ends, I believe that it was also ill-advised.
https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/npb/people/amc/articles-pdfs/racediff


Fair warning.

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Are you really going to make me talk about IQ tests and race?

Why not?
If only to expose your arguing for racist ideals ...why not?
Quote:
I mean, the details? Weare going to actually allege that James Watson, one half of the team that figured out a lot about how DNA works, is merely a bigot?

See, you dont even know that he is the discover of the double helix. How DNA worked had already long been established.
Yikes.

Racist alert ! Anyone who posits the following is an avowed racist, or barring the knowledge to seek the truth, just a complete idiot.

Bugs, you may be both! Whoop!
Quote:
Somalis are caucasian,

LOL! Spoken like a true ignorant/racist. You decide which one you are.

Somali's are generally 60 negroid and 40% caucasian.


Quote:


Trigger warning: digging into this will take the reader into some unpleasant but factual stuff.


The only one going to be triggered is you.

Damn...I can stop laughing at you because, in your fury to pound the keyboard in an attempt to look smart, you have shot yourself in the foot.

The article you link and present says right at the beginning that Eysenck's work was wrong .
From your link.
Quote:
1. Introduction
To many people, Hans Eysenck's name is principally associated with
certain claims that he first published in 1971 about the heritability of intelligence and race differences in IQ scores. This article will begin with
personal reminiscences and impressions of Eysenck the man, and it
will then review and comment critically on his views on race and intelligence in the light of what we now know. Although there are aspects of
IQ, heritability, and race differences that remain obscure, much has been
learnt since the 1970s, and I believe that Eysenck's interpretation of
these issues is hardly tenable today

Hardly: 1.
scarcely (used to qualify a statement by saying that it is true to an insignificant degree)

Tenable: 1.
able to be maintained or defended against attack or objection.


Wow, pretty stupid of you to want to make a point and then provide a link that completely shreds your premise. Genius at work!


SOS.

LOL!
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Toronto Centre"]
Bugs wrote:
Are you really going to make me talk about IQ tests and race?

Why not?
If only to expose your arguing for racist ideals ...why not?
Quote:
I mean, the details? Weare going to actually allege that James Watson, one half of the team that figured out a lot about how DNA works, is merely a bigot?

See, you dont even know that he is the discover of the double helix. How DNA worked had already long been established.
Yikes.

Racist alert ! Anyone who posits the following is an avowed racist, or barring the knowledge to seek the truth, just a complete idiot.

Bugs, you may be both! Whoop!
Quote:
Somalis are caucasian,

LOL! Spoken like a true ignorant/racist. You decide which one you are.

Somali's are generally 60 negroid and 40% caucasian.


Quote:


Trigger warning: digging into this will take the reader into some unpleasant but factual stuff.


The only one going to be triggered is you.

Damn...I can stop laughing at you because, in your fury to pound the keyboard in an attempt to look smart, you have shot yourself in the foot.

The article you link and present says right at the beginning that Eysenck's work was wrong .
From your link.
Quote:
1. Introduction
To many people, Hans Eysenck's name is principally associated with
certain claims that he first published in 1971 about the heritability of intelligence and race differences in IQ scores. This article will begin with
personal reminiscences and impressions of Eysenck the man, and it
will then review and comment critically on his views on race and intelligence in the light of what we now know. Although there are aspects of
IQ, heritability, and race differences that remain obscure, much has been
learnt since the 1970s, and I believe that Eysenck's interpretation of
these issues is hardly tenable today

Hardly: 1.
scarcely (used to qualify a statement by saying that it is true to an insignificant degree)

Tenable: 1.
able to be maintained or defended against attack or objection.


Wow, you to want to make a point and then provide a link that completely shreds your premise? Genius at work!


SOS.

LOL!
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just for the record -- I am not arguing in support of racism. I am oI am only looking for the truth. I don't know how the truth can be racist.

I am merely pointing to an extensive scientific literature that TC claimed doesn't exist, and which only points out the reality. Apparently the existence of this research -- as valid as anything in the discipline of psychology and widely accepted by those who work in the field -- is enough to make TC foam over.

I very well know that this is against the unofficial code of multiculturalism, and I am not trying to convince anyone of these findings. In fact, I was reluctant to bring it up because I knew it would attract the troll's reflexive denunciations, rather than a fact-based discussion.

As for TC, he should console himself with the thought that half the population has a two-digit IQ, so he is far from alone.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are a funny man.

Your link denounces what you thought , completely .

There is no scientific community that backs the idea that DNA shows intelligence.

I am low intelligence even tho it was you positing something that your OWN link says doesnt exist.

Oh my. Carry on Stuck on Stupid then.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

21st Century Racism

This is the most preposterous misreading of the facts imaginable. The truth is that it embarrasses academics in those fields. They are typically committed to the assumption that all people are equal. Not just 'equal before the state' but -- at least as groups -- equal in endowment. No "race" is better than the other races ... the only difference is skin colour, which is (bu their lights inconsequential.

We all have grown up committed to these notions in a religious way. We ignore the inequalities that exist amongst people even when it is shockingly obvious. Why? Because our political ideologies insist we treat all people equally, and show no preference for our own.

But this isn't the way the world works. The normal thing -- particularly when you move out of the West -- is to prefer strangers in your own group to strangers from other groups. (It's a little different when people know each other.)

The idea of 'equality before the state' is really a very noble and "enlightenment" idea. But you don't have to go very far to find those ideas being looked on as naive. In most of the world, customary "bribes" are used in transactions with the state, because "tribal loyalties" are extended that far. In our world, that's corrupt -- but in most of the world, it's part of getting things done.

In Canada, it has been conventional to accept this. Immigrants were allowed a certain amount of 'racism' on the supposition that their children would become like us. Chinese people weren't expected to ignore their own community -- that was reserved for second and third generation Canadians.

That's the social background in which IQ research takes place. Let me give you the scale of the differences the research shows. I underline that the research has been done over decades, with culturally neutral tests, and with different researchers. The researchers often do not want to find what they find. Even in their papers, they try to squirm away from the obvious differences that the tests reveal. Why? Because the results give comfort to the racists.

There are large populations on earth where the average IQ is two standard deviations below the white Western population, and even more below the Asians. This means that only about 5% of such populations have the same IQs as the average white person!

(I am not going to identify these population for obvious reasons, except to say it is not the Afro-American population if that's what you think.)

Similar differences -- not so large -- exist between men and women, although they have almost identical IQ scores. It's just that men's curve is flatter, and more of them appear at both ends of their normal curve. It means that fields like nuclear physics are almost all men, and on the other hands, more of the 'intellectually challenged' are men.

I personally feel that the presumption that everybody is 'equal' before the law is a good one. But, as individuals, we are not equal. Most of us have different bundles of abilities and potentials, and for the economy to maximize, we have to recognize that because we have to use relatively scarce talents efficiently for everybody's benefit.

The ideological heat in our country is so great that giants or Science can be chastised for recognizing the facts. Look at TC as he foams over. He may not be too bright, and he's certainly uninformed, but he isn't stupid. It's that he's addled with ideology and (which seriously overlaps) with party loyalty. And he's going to join the bad guys who are leading us into a racist, sexist society that nobody really wants.

In a society where opportunity is open, and where the winner is the one that merits it most, all these differences will work their way out. But in a society that measures group success by outcomes, and tries to control outcomes, it is deadly. It means putting underqualified people of various identity groups in positions because of their melanin and gonads and wasting the abilities of those who have merit.

TC is a melanin and gonads person. He has an entirely closed mind on the topic, which he knows next to nothing about. The bigger problem is that the whole population is being led down that path by the Liberal Party. The perverse part is that they use the fears of what they are pushing us towards to goad us in the direction we are on.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And people in small towns are a lot dumber than city folks.

Cuz I said so....without any scientific backing or links. Kinda like....ya know. I too would be embarassed if my cause was backed by a link that completely deflates what I was trying to say.

LOL!

Carry on SOS .
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lottsa science ... that's the problem!

Check for yourself. This video shows a pair of confirmed liberals -- in the classic sense of the word -- wrestling with the science. The researcher starts to lay out his case about the 10-minute mark. The racial part starts about the 17-minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Jaml-QTaOk

I offer this to TC, fully knowing that it will not change his mind and wlll only earn me scorn and abuse. He will offer nothing but his usual mix of sneers and contempt in response. It's hard to have a conversation about this with a conceited bigot.

The reason it's important is that the state creates social policy on the basis that there are no group differences. This leads them to the conclusion that, if there are different rates of participation in an occupation, it's a proof of white male bigotry as far as the government is concerned ... which itself hires on the basis of race and sex, as well as language skills.

This is the basis of the quota system they have developed on the assumption that the sole reason for occupational differences is because of discrimination, which is always seen as the white male mindset.

It seems to be what Justin means to campaign on, so you better be prepared for it. Conservatives are racists -- as far as Liberals are concerned.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You keep on posting about superior races bugs.

Ill let your own words prove just how stupid you are.

There are reams of sites out there that debunk this shit thoroughly and if you cannot discern that to get to the truth, which historically you never do, then thats on you.

So far this week, you have proven to be a liar about mayerthorpe, a racist, and a homophobe and its only Thursday.

You go girl! Your attempt to make this world as stupid as you is admirable in the abstract . But then again, dumb folks dont know they're dumb and keep at it.

So...........keep at it girl!
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The gentle reader will note that the response was much along the lines I predicted. He doesn't deal with the issue I raise, rather he implies I am a white supremacist. He won't respond to the issue.

He says there are oodles of sites that refute what I say. Why doesn't he present them? Does he think he has refuted anything? Or puffed himself up with faux indignation? What about the facts?

It illustrates my point -- how politicized science pollutes social policy decisions down to the granular level.

There is no reference to 'superior races' in anything that I presented, and in fact, all the references I have presented have bent over backwards to avoid saying that. That's why they approach these questions by the most oblique route possible.

The government itself hires on the basis of sex and race. In Bob Rae's time in office, this was made explicit. The former "No males need apply" was replaced with some drivel about how the applications of women and visible minorities were "particularly encouraged". But it means the same thing.

I have further tried to make the point that individuals are not bound by the statistics of what is normal in their particular group. Social identities based on melanin or gonads ought not to be factors. The jobs should go to the most qualified without regard to such accidental qualities.

It is, in fact, my contention that it is the other side of this argument that are the racists, in the sense that they use racial and gender identities to make decisions that discriminate against white males, which is indubitably true. But I don't use that as an accusation because I am convinced that many of the politically correct are ideologically deformed to think that way. Evidence doesn't matter anymore.

Canada is now more in the grip of racial and sexual barriers than it has ever been in its history! The fact that the bigots call themselves "progressives" ought not to obscure that plain fact.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
The gentle reader will note that the response was much along the lines I predicted. He doesn't deal with the issue I raise, rather he implies I am a white supremacist. He won't respond to the issue.

Oh my. One link, one....ONE link.

Ok...and from your own link it states....
"Although there are aspects of
IQ, heritability, and race differences that remain obscure, much has been
learnt since the 1970s, and I believe that Eysenck's interpretation of
these issues is hardly tenable today


What that means is his research is not valid .

If you'd gone to University perhaps you would have learned critical thinking. But that is never in your posts.

Gotta say...SOS still and forever .

Quote:
What about the facts?

Ornageguy2 doesnt deal in facts. You prove that time and again.

Dumbass. Thanks for Friday's laugh.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Politicalization of Science ... the case of a DNA pioneer

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB