[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Well, the best way to handle the whole issue would be for you to actually engage the discussion, laying out your thoughts and providing supporting citations.
This you routinely choose to not do, generally inserting little questions framed in such a way as to imply a particular belief, then ducking behind the fact that you have not explicitly made any point when someone infers your position.
[/quote]
Let’s try and see: My actual position is if Watson is branded a “racist,” it logically follows that many scientists stating things far less controversial need to be considered “racist.”
Also, I question whether there’s any point in deciding whether he’s racist or not. The more important question is whether he is correct.
There it is: That’s my position.
I disagree. For one thing, the person I am debating with could simply admit that I never said what is claimed.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Let’s try and see: My actual position is if Watson is branded a “racist,” it logically follows that many scientists stating things far less controversial need to be considered “racist.”
[/quote]
Ah, I see. No, it doesn’t. (See post #37.)
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Also, I question whether there’s any point in deciding whether he’s racist or not.
[/quote]
There is a point. The single most important piece of information in any message is the name of the messenger.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
The more important question is whether he is correct.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Ah, I see. No, it doesn’t. (See post #37.)
[/quote]
So if a scientist says that Race A has, on average, more of Quality X than Race B; and Quality X has public policy implications, then that scientist is racist?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Despite which denial, he’s been suspended as Chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but that is political fallout as the lab scrambles to make sure they don’t lose any grants or supporters. He has not been convicted of any actual ethical lapses or deliberate distortions in a scientific paper.
Scientific American notes that he has not been fired (as is also being misreported, elsewhere), so I don’t really have an opinion about his suspension.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
So if a scientist says that Race A has, on average, more of Quality X than Race B; and Quality X has public policy implications, then that scientist is racist?
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily, but that’s the way to bet. As with AGW-deniers: In evaluating what they say, it is essential to look as carefully at their politics and funding sources as at their scientific credentials.
I was surprised how widespread this story was on online communities. The internet really is an echo-chamber with a disappointingly narrow set of interests.
Miller seemed to be saying that on two occasions, I indicated that there should be special criteria for scientists in deciding whether or not to label them as “racist”
I believed that I did not make such a statement and that I had simply tried to limit the context to scientists to make the question simpler.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Where did I accuse anyone of lying? Haha.
Let me spell it out for you:
Miller seemed to be saying that on two occasions, I indicated that there should be special criteria for scientists in deciding whether or not to label them as “racist”
I believed that I did not make such a statement and that I had simply tried to limit the context to scientists to make the question simpler.
Any other questions?
[/QUOTE]
If limiting the context to scientists makes the question simpler, then you are using a different set of criteria to define the word “racist” when it’s applied to scientists than you would when applying it to anyone else. If the same set of criteria applies to scientists as it does to non-scientists, then limiting the context to scientists would not make the question simpler, as you’d be giving the same answer in both situations.
[QUOTE=Miller]
If limiting the context to scientists makes the question simpler, then you are using a different set of criteria to define the word “racist” when it’s applied to scientists than you would when applying it to anyone else. If the same set of criteria applies to scientists as it does to non-scientists, then limiting the context to scientists would not make the question simpler, as you’d be giving the same answer in both situations.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not necessarily true. For example, I might end up applying the same criteria to scientists and non-scientists, but for different reasons.
Or I might eventually decide that the criteria are the same, but not know it in advance.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
So if a scientist says that Race A has, on average, more of Quality X than Race B; and Quality X has public policy implications, then that scientist is racist?
[/QUOTE]
Did the scientist imply a certain policy should be chosen based on this, or just reported the results of a study, with all the usual caveats?
The tricky part here is figuring out what the public policy implications are of any difference in averages. I can’t think of any. if group A is on the average three inches shorter than group B, should doors in group A’s neighborhood be built shorter?
Public policy is applied to individuals, not groups. (or should be.)
But a scientist doing the study might be racist if:
He or she draws policy implications from the data that aren’t warranted, based on race. (Or sexist is based on sex.)
The study was done to provide information for racists who would draw such implications.