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.
Ah, I see. No, it doesn’t. (See post #37.)
There is a point. The single most important piece of information in any message is the name of the messenger.
So it is! Debate it!
For discussion in depth, see here.
Current status regarding Watson’s comments from the Associated Press.
Including, but not limited to
Despite which denial, he’s been suspended as Chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
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?
For a full statement signed by Watson, see here. It is probably more representative of his views than few short snippets.
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.
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.
Where has anyone in this thread done either of those things?
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.
Post # 58.
Where in post #58?
Where another poster said
What was the lie?
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?
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.
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.
I got you to actually take a position and defend it with declaraticew sentences. Ha ha ha!
My work is done, here.
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: