IAP Political Forum
December 03, 2008, 07:30:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the new "IAP 2.0" -- please re-register before continuing to post.
 
   Home   Blog Forum   Help Search Chat Login Register  
Digg This!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The New Inquisition  (Read 1083 times)
Major Zee Lee
Forum cat lover
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +64/-169
Posts: 566


Kooks not allowed in (Secret meeting is next door)


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 02, 2007, 04:13:11 AM »

There are some guidelines that should be adhered to in making public statements. I don't want to deny anyone their own personal view of things, but people who walk around presenting themselves a Dr. so and so have little higher standard to keep. People who expect to be taken seriously about being geneticists shouldn't make  unsupported racist claims.


This isn't about the "establishment" not liking Dr. Watson's science, because the statements he is being ridiculed for were decidedly unscientific. It is not the statistics or scores he presents, it is him using them in an unscientific manner along presentation of stereotypes that is scientifically lacking.

Jumping to conclusions regarding causality and ignoring the possibility of extraneous variables is wholly unscientific.

The undeniable fact remains that Dr. Watson lost his job for stating his opinion. Plain and simple. You might say "Elementary my dear Watson"! Wink

OswaldTheOsprey

He lost his job as a scientist for stating an unscientifical, politically bigoted and untimely opinion.

Would you hire as Surgeon General a guy who claimed that AIDS is caused by UFO abductions? Then why you want to hire a biochemist who claims that black people is too uninteligent to take advantage of development aid?
Logged

Do not take life too seriously; nobody lives to tell.
OswaldTheOsprey
High Society
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +100/-123
Posts: 9,152



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2007, 08:42:02 AM »

There are some guidelines that should be adhered to in making public statements. I don't want to deny anyone their own personal view of things, but people who walk around presenting themselves a Dr. so and so have little higher standard to keep. People who expect to be taken seriously about being geneticists shouldn't make  unsupported racist claims.


This isn't about the "establishment" not liking Dr. Watson's science, because the statements he is being ridiculed for were decidedly unscientific. It is not the statistics or scores he presents, it is him using them in an unscientific manner along presentation of stereotypes that is scientifically lacking.

Jumping to conclusions regarding causality and ignoring the possibility of extraneous variables is wholly unscientific.

The undeniable fact remains that Dr. Watson lost his job for stating his opinion. Plain and simple. You might say "Elementary my dear Watson"! Wink

OswaldTheOsprey

He lost his job as a scientist for stating an unscientifical, politically bigoted and untimely opinion.

Would you hire as Surgeon General a guy who claimed that AIDS is caused by UFO abductions? Then why you want to hire a biochemist who claims that black people is too uninteligent to take advantage of development aid?

I would hire the best person for the job and not worry about their personal opinions. If Dr. Watson had been a cultural marxist, the establishment would slobber over him.

OswaldTheOsprey
Logged

Urbi et Orbi
Major Zee Lee
Forum cat lover
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +64/-169
Posts: 566


Kooks not allowed in (Secret meeting is next door)


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2007, 10:08:36 AM »

There are some guidelines that should be adhered to in making public statements. I don't want to deny anyone their own personal view of things, but people who walk around presenting themselves a Dr. so and so have little higher standard to keep. People who expect to be taken seriously about being geneticists shouldn't make  unsupported racist claims.


This isn't about the "establishment" not liking Dr. Watson's science, because the statements he is being ridiculed for were decidedly unscientific. It is not the statistics or scores he presents, it is him using them in an unscientific manner along presentation of stereotypes that is scientifically lacking.

Jumping to conclusions regarding causality and ignoring the possibility of extraneous variables is wholly unscientific.

The undeniable fact remains that Dr. Watson lost his job for stating his opinion. Plain and simple. You might say "Elementary my dear Watson"! Wink

OswaldTheOsprey

He lost his job as a scientist for stating an unscientifical, politically bigoted and untimely opinion.

Would you hire as Surgeon General a guy who claimed that AIDS is caused by UFO abductions? Then why you want to hire a biochemist who claims that black people is too uninteligent to take advantage of development aid?

I would hire the best person for the job and not worry about their personal opinions. If Dr. Watson had been a cultural marxist, the establishment would slobber over him.

OswaldTheOsprey

HAH!

Oh, wait a minute: maybe you're true and you would hire a pedohpile as long as he was the best person for the job of school principal... laugh
Logged

Do not take life too seriously; nobody lives to tell.
OswaldTheOsprey
High Society
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +100/-123
Posts: 9,152



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2007, 10:37:47 AM »

Pedophilia involves criminal acts. Speaking one's mind doesn't.

OswaldTheOsprey
Logged

Urbi et Orbi
Reasoned Faith
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +146/-165
Posts: 893


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2007, 05:54:00 PM »



He lost his job as a scientist for stating an unscientifical, politically bigoted and untimely opinion.

I find your opinion surprising given that people of particular descents, as a group, for some reason, do score lower on IQ tests and a litany of other standardized performance tests and Dr. Watson's view follows directly from the precepts of Darwinian evolutionary theory which you claim is scientific. The idea that intelligence (and indeed all functional characteristics) is a function of genetic configuration is Darwinian to the core.  You claim you are nearly certain that humans are more intelligent than apes and this is due to evolutionary processes.  You claim that this near certainty is scientifically based.  Now you are backpedaling when you claim that it is not scientific to extend this to different genetic lines of humans.
Logged
Major Zee Lee
Forum cat lover
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +64/-169
Posts: 566


Kooks not allowed in (Secret meeting is next door)


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 03, 2007, 03:13:13 AM »



He lost his job as a scientist for stating an unscientifical, politically bigoted and untimely opinion.

I find your opinion surprising given that people of particular descents, as a group, for some reason, do score lower on IQ tests and a litany of other standardized performance tests and Dr. Watson's view follows directly from the precepts of Darwinian evolutionary theory which you claim is scientific. The idea that intelligence (and indeed all functional characteristics) is a function of genetic configuration is Darwinian to the core.  You claim you are nearly certain that humans are more intelligent than apes and this is due to evolutionary processes.  You claim that this near certainty is scientifically based.  Now you are backpedaling when you claim that it is not scientific to extend this to different genetic lines of humans.

A- There is no scientifical definition of intelligence
B- There is no scientific evidence that "intelligence tests" measure intelligence at all instead of the abbility to perform intelligence tests -whereas evidence shows that he abbbility to perform intelligence tests is severely dependant upon cultural factors
C- There is no scientific evidence that the abbility to perform intelligence tests is related with intelligence
D- There is no evidence that intelligence is a singlee factor and not a mix of them, nor that intelligence can be quantified, measured and compared
E- There is no evidence that intelligence is related only with internal factors (genes) whereas there is evidence that external factors can alter intelligence

And, of course, your claim is a straw man. The proof of evolution is not that we are more intelligent than apes, but that them and we share common ancestors as is proven by fossile record and genetical links.

Just one last comment. Intelligence tests were not born to measure intelligence. The idea that intelligence could be measured and compared through tests was completely alien to the origin of such tests, and was born under the assumption of certain white anglo-saxon protestant males that such white anglo-saxon protestant males where intellectually superior to females and to other ethnias, confessions and races... It is sort of funny how 100 years later the same kind of white males (which no longer dare to claim "anglo-saxonity" and "protestantsy" as part of their "superiority") still get to "prove" their assumption despite the beating taken by their ideology... Grin
Logged

Do not take life too seriously; nobody lives to tell.
Reasoned Faith
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +146/-165
Posts: 893


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2007, 06:00:04 AM »



He lost his job as a scientist for stating an unscientifical, politically bigoted and untimely opinion.

I find your opinion surprising given that people of particular descents, as a group, for some reason, do score lower on IQ tests and a litany of other standardized performance tests and Dr. Watson's view follows directly from the precepts of Darwinian evolutionary theory which you claim is scientific. The idea that intelligence (and indeed all functional characteristics) is a function of genetic configuration is Darwinian to the core.  You claim you are nearly certain that humans are more intelligent than apes and this is due to evolutionary processes.  You claim that this near certainty is scientifically based.  Now you are backpedaling when you claim that it is not scientific to extend this to different genetic lines of humans.

A- There is no scientifical definition of intelligence
B- There is no scientific evidence that "intelligence tests" measure intelligence at all instead of the abbility to perform intelligence tests -whereas evidence shows that he abbbility to perform intelligence tests is severely dependant upon cultural factors
C- There is no scientific evidence that the abbility to perform intelligence tests is related with intelligence
D- There is no evidence that intelligence is a singlee factor and not a mix of them, nor that intelligence can be quantified, measured and compared
E- There is no evidence that intelligence is related only with internal factors (genes) whereas there is evidence that external factors can alter intelligence

And, of course, your claim is a straw man. The proof of evolution is not that we are more intelligent than apes, but that them and we share common ancestors as is proven by fossile record and genetical links.

This is precious.  Countless clinical studies that show strong (overwhelming really) correlations between genetic inheritance and intelligence is not scientific but subjective observations of weak similarities between fossils of broken pieces of bone is scientific proof that not only are the bone fragments genetically related but furthermore they got that way by evolutionary processes despite the fact that fossils cannot tell us anything about the processes that caused them to exist.  Likewise similarities in coding regions of different organisms tells us nothing about how these similarities came to be, and scientifically valid experimental information demonstrates why known evolutionary processes cannot account for the differences but this too is scientific proof that Darwinian evolution is true. 

You construct these special pleadings while accusing me of straw man arguments that quite clearly are relevant to the topic.  What motivates this inconsistent behavior?  What are you trying to protect?  Why are you so invested in this  idea that when some unflattering aspect of the theory surfaces you must distance it from the conclusion while at the same time oversell the evidence favoring the premise?  Your bias is too obvious to ignore.


Logged
Major Zee Lee
Forum cat lover
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +64/-169
Posts: 566


Kooks not allowed in (Secret meeting is next door)


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2007, 10:07:21 AM »



He lost his job as a scientist for stating an unscientifical, politically bigoted and untimely opinion.

I find your opinion surprising given that people of particular descents, as a group, for some reason, do score lower on IQ tests and a litany of other standardized performance tests and Dr. Watson's view follows directly from the precepts of Darwinian evolutionary theory which you claim is scientific. The idea that intelligence (and indeed all functional characteristics) is a function of genetic configuration is Darwinian to the core.  You claim you are nearly certain that humans are more intelligent than apes and this is due to evolutionary processes.  You claim that this near certainty is scientifically based.  Now you are backpedaling when you claim that it is not scientific to extend this to different genetic lines of humans.

A- There is no scientifical definition of intelligence
B- There is no scientific evidence that "intelligence tests" measure intelligence at all instead of the abbility to perform intelligence tests -whereas evidence shows that he abbbility to perform intelligence tests is severely dependant upon cultural factors
C- There is no scientific evidence that the abbility to perform intelligence tests is related with intelligence
D- There is no evidence that intelligence is a singlee factor and not a mix of them, nor that intelligence can be quantified, measured and compared
E- There is no evidence that intelligence is related only with internal factors (genes) whereas there is evidence that external factors can alter intelligence

And, of course, your claim is a straw man. The proof of evolution is not that we are more intelligent than apes, but that them and we share common ancestors as is proven by fossile record and genetical links.

This is precious.  Countless clinical studies that show strong (overwhelming really) correlations between genetic inheritance and intelligence is not scientific(...)

What is intelligence?
Logged

Do not take life too seriously; nobody lives to tell.
Reasoned Faith
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +146/-165
Posts: 893


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2007, 10:26:15 AM »

O please.  You pretend not to know the definition for a word in point A and then you proceed to use that same word unambiguously ten times in your follow up points. 

You are a fraud, Major.  You give yourself away.
Logged
Major Zee Lee
Forum cat lover
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +64/-169
Posts: 566


Kooks not allowed in (Secret meeting is next door)


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: November 03, 2007, 10:35:05 AM »

O please.  You pretend not to know the definition for a word in point A and then you proceed to use that same word unambiguously ten times in your follow up points. 

You are a fraud, Major.  You give yourself away.

There is no scientific definition of intelligence. All the rest are a consequence of this.

But anyway pretending that a guy whose nickname is an oxymoron is talking straight and true is beyond my gullability... Wink


(and by the way... this thread was about an alleged "prosecution" of a scientist who made a racist unscientific commentary. I wonder why you are pretending to turn that into a discussion about evolution. Whatever happened to ID? Is it losing steam now that nobody has published a book in a while?)
« Last Edit: November 03, 2007, 10:39:09 AM by Major Zee Lee » Logged

Do not take life too seriously; nobody lives to tell.
Reasoned Faith
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +146/-165
Posts: 893


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: November 03, 2007, 10:49:28 AM »

O please.  You pretend not to know the definition for a word in point A and then you proceed to use that same word unambiguously ten times in your follow up points. 

You are a fraud, Major.  You give yourself away.

snip. . .

(and by the way... this thread was about an alleged "prosecution" of a scientist who made a racist unscientific commentary.

This thread is about a scientist (the cofounder of the discovery of DNA as the medium for storage of biological information) who made remarks about implications that directly follow from his belief about the efficacy of the scientific theory known as Darwinian Evolution.  His beliefs (that genetic traits influence all expressed characteristics including performance of the brain to capture retain and apply knowledge) are 100% consistent with the Darwinian narrative.
Logged
Major Zee Lee
Forum cat lover
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +64/-169
Posts: 566


Kooks not allowed in (Secret meeting is next door)


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: November 03, 2007, 01:16:41 PM »

O please.  You pretend not to know the definition for a word in point A and then you proceed to use that same word unambiguously ten times in your follow up points. 

You are a fraud, Major.  You give yourself away.

snip. . .

(and by the way... this thread was about an alleged "prosecution" of a scientist who made a racist unscientific commentary.

This thread is about a scientist (the cofounder of the discovery of DNA as the medium for storage of biological information) who made remarks about implications that directly follow from his belief about the efficacy of the scientific theory known as Darwinian Evolution.  His beliefs (that genetic traits influence all expressed characteristics including performance of the brain to capture retain and apply knowledge) are 100% consistent with the Darwinian narrative.

Logged

Do not take life too seriously; nobody lives to tell.
tadpol
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +27/-19
Posts: 291



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: November 04, 2007, 09:27:19 PM »

Out of curiosity what is the difference in average iq of an afirican vs an american or european? And is there any data to suggest a coralation between the average intelligence of a group and the intelligence of the group as a whole or the leaders of the group? --is average intelligence an intelligent way of ranking intelligence in groups? And if iq tests a culturally biased (what isn't) do africans make anti-european tests?
Logged
Major Zee Lee
Forum cat lover
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +64/-169
Posts: 566


Kooks not allowed in (Secret meeting is next door)


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: November 05, 2007, 03:03:58 AM »

Out of curiosity what is the difference in average iq of an afirican vs an american or european?

It depends upon "who you ask to", litherally. Historically, answers range from none to a lot.

Quote
And is there any data to suggest a coralation between the average intelligence of a group and the intelligence of the group as a whole or the leaders of the group?

Once again, it depends upon who you ask to. Scientifically we don't have any satisfactory definition of what is and what is not intelligence. Scientificlaly, we don't even know if intelligence can be measured at all. It could be like measuring happiness -something too complex and subjective to be defined.

As a rule of thumb, people who will answer you is people who already think that there are differenes, that intelligence can be measured and compared as to confirm their previous assumption that caucasian male are superior... although scientifically, the most likely answer so far to "which human races there are" is: "one"...

Quote
--is average intelligence an intelligent way of ranking intelligence in groups?

Provided that intelligence tests just measure the abbility to perform intelligence tests, and that the abbility to perform intelligence tests is strongly culture-related, we don't have any evidence that "intelligence" as measured in "intelligence tests" is actually measuring any innate difference between individuals... let alone groups!

Quote
And if iq tests a culturally biased (what isn't) do africans make anti-european tests?

Intelligence tests are a white men's hobby... some blacks have made tests to show the superiority of black over white, but they learned that in the USA and from white men doing exactly the opposite... laugh


See, intelligence tests were born in France. Their purpose was to identify children with learning handicaps so they could attend correction classes that stimulated their learning abbility. They were never supposed to measure anything, nor to rank the children from "best" to "worst"; just identify in advance the children who would need "mind gymnastics" (brain training) to keep the pace with their schoolmates. That was done and it worked greatly, and was the origin of what eventually would become special education once the stimulation techniques were applied too to patological cases.

The history of intelligence tests as a tool for discrimination and racism began in the USA, when a group of jingoists figured that those tests measured intelligence (wrong) and ranked people from best to worst (wrong) and so coudl be compared (wrong) in order to prove how "native" American, white, anglos-saxon, protestant, where superior to the "immigrants" (eastern and southern european, jew, and of course Irish). They succeded in their atempt and that led to the 1924 Immigration Act, which amongst other things ensured that millions of Jew would stay in Europe all the way to auschwitz...

You can read a detailed and devastating history about intelligence tests, their origin, their racist use and the deadly mistake that convicned serious scientists that they were really measuring intelligence, in this very interesting book: "The mismeasure of man", but Stephen Jay Gould. A MUST read to anyone who ever wondered wether IQ tests measure intelligence or just the abbility to perform IQ tests... police
« Last Edit: November 05, 2007, 03:09:13 AM by Major Zee Lee » Logged

Do not take life too seriously; nobody lives to tell.
OswaldTheOsprey
High Society
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +100/-123
Posts: 9,152



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2007, 09:36:53 AM »

Another penetrating article by Steve Sailer concerning the brutal treatment of Dr. Watson. So much for the free exchange of ideas. From VDARE.com.

OswaldTheOsprey

http://www.vdare.com/asp/printPage.asp?url=http://www.vdare.com/sailer/071104_watson.htm
Logged

Urbi et Orbi
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.213 seconds with 27 queries.