20/10: Some Things are Not Open for Discussion: Watson Gets Hammered
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
James Watson, Nobel prize-winning geneticist ("the father of DNA"), is under fire for racist remarks he made to London's Sunday Times Magazine.
Quoth he (as reported in the above British article):
He says that he is “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”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address.
His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
The Reaction?
International furor and universal condemnation.
According to the International Herald Tribune:
"London's Science Museum canceled a sold-out lecture, and the University of Edinburgh, where the scientist was to speak Monday, issued a statement saying it had withdrawn the invitation."
At which point, Watson canceled his book tour and returned to America. In addition to his engagements in London and Edinburgh, Watson was also set to deliver major lectures at Cambridge, Newcastle, Bristol and Oxford.
Reaction in America:
From TIME Magazine :
"There is no scientific basis for such a belief."
"For one thing, science has no agreed-upon definition of "race:" however you slice up the population, the categories look pretty arbitrary. For another, science has no agreed-upon definition of "intelligence" either--let alone an agreed-upon method to test it. All kinds of cultural biases have been identified in IQ tests, for example. If there is something fundamental in our brains that regulates our capacity to learn, we have yet to separate its effects from the effects of everything that we experience after we're born."
Having said that, TIME expresses some sympathy for Watson, wondering if the scientific giant "is less an arrogant bigot than an enthusiastic if misguided old man...."
Scott Simon, NPR's Weekend Edition anchor opines (linked here):
"Dr. Watson reminds us that Nobel Prize winners can also be fools."
Even Watson himself seemed outraged as his own statement, testifying now that he is at a loss to fathom how or why he would say such a thing; he is in full recant.
All parties are united in the certainty that Watson's remarks are completely inappropriate and absolutely false. Moreover, implicit in this humiliation, pursuit of similar ideas are prima facie evidence of racism, which is the ultimate career-ending condemnation.
The bottom line: This incident reeks with hypocrisy. So much for academic discourse. So much for the scientific method of observation followed by experimentation to test hypotheses derived from questions formed through experience. The academy is ostensibly designed to promote free discussion, free thought, and critical thinking. Universities purportedly serve society as fortresses to protect the free exchange of ideas.
But, obviously, there are important exceptions. As for race, we have discovered as much truth as we are willing to accept. Clearly, any further discussion in this field of study must conform to our already agreed-upon correct conclusions.
I am not a scientist. I tend to put my faith in the scientific consensus. Even more instructive, I am a naive American idealist who desperately wants to believe that "all men are created equal." However, from my lay perspective, it seems cowardly and cynical to reward some dissenting voices and punish others simply because they challenge certain sacred societal absolutes.
Ironically, those enlightened American progressives who generally seem so ready to bemoan the "chilling effect" of suppression of free speech, are the most likely to join the chorus of zealots shouting down the unorthodoxy of Dr. Watson.
Quoth he (as reported in the above British article):
He says that he is “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”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address.
His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
The Reaction?
International furor and universal condemnation.
According to the International Herald Tribune:
"London's Science Museum canceled a sold-out lecture, and the University of Edinburgh, where the scientist was to speak Monday, issued a statement saying it had withdrawn the invitation."
At which point, Watson canceled his book tour and returned to America. In addition to his engagements in London and Edinburgh, Watson was also set to deliver major lectures at Cambridge, Newcastle, Bristol and Oxford.
Reaction in America:
From TIME Magazine :
"There is no scientific basis for such a belief."
"For one thing, science has no agreed-upon definition of "race:" however you slice up the population, the categories look pretty arbitrary. For another, science has no agreed-upon definition of "intelligence" either--let alone an agreed-upon method to test it. All kinds of cultural biases have been identified in IQ tests, for example. If there is something fundamental in our brains that regulates our capacity to learn, we have yet to separate its effects from the effects of everything that we experience after we're born."
Having said that, TIME expresses some sympathy for Watson, wondering if the scientific giant "is less an arrogant bigot than an enthusiastic if misguided old man...."
Scott Simon, NPR's Weekend Edition anchor opines (linked here):
"Dr. Watson reminds us that Nobel Prize winners can also be fools."
Even Watson himself seemed outraged as his own statement, testifying now that he is at a loss to fathom how or why he would say such a thing; he is in full recant.
All parties are united in the certainty that Watson's remarks are completely inappropriate and absolutely false. Moreover, implicit in this humiliation, pursuit of similar ideas are prima facie evidence of racism, which is the ultimate career-ending condemnation.
The bottom line: This incident reeks with hypocrisy. So much for academic discourse. So much for the scientific method of observation followed by experimentation to test hypotheses derived from questions formed through experience. The academy is ostensibly designed to promote free discussion, free thought, and critical thinking. Universities purportedly serve society as fortresses to protect the free exchange of ideas.
But, obviously, there are important exceptions. As for race, we have discovered as much truth as we are willing to accept. Clearly, any further discussion in this field of study must conform to our already agreed-upon correct conclusions.
I am not a scientist. I tend to put my faith in the scientific consensus. Even more instructive, I am a naive American idealist who desperately wants to believe that "all men are created equal." However, from my lay perspective, it seems cowardly and cynical to reward some dissenting voices and punish others simply because they challenge certain sacred societal absolutes.
Ironically, those enlightened American progressives who generally seem so ready to bemoan the "chilling effect" of suppression of free speech, are the most likely to join the chorus of zealots shouting down the unorthodoxy of Dr. Watson.
Evrviglnt wrote:
What is interesting about this story (and the many others like it) is the willingness of the White West to showcase this politically incorrect behavior. One would think that at some point we would ostracize such unpopular thought, resign it to the deserts of civilized conversation - not to the heard of or endured - alas, the opposite is the case. Western society is eager to advertise such sins against multiculturalism, and so we see cases like these constantly. Public shaming seems to be the tactic we use to drive any challenges to racial or cultural relativism, ignoring the larger consequences of making outrageous statement by non-minorities appear to be mainstream views, or as in this case, the spectre that freedom of thought can't even hurdle the low bar of scientific inquiry.
I'm well aware that racists have used science to validate their views, and in this case I don't know enough about the man to make a judgement as to what his motivations are behind the positions he takes. What I am certain about is that we continue to infantilize some minorities through the standards we hold them to. Apparently we see them today as still being incapable of defending themselves.
Isn't that racist?