James Watson and Race By Brian Simpson
Here is a story about political correctness in science, as James Watson, co-discoverer of the nature of DNA, that is the double helix structure, is now under attack by the New Inquisition for his defendable views on racial differences in intelligence. Let us consult one of our favourite newspapers, The New York Times, that gives us all of the news fit to print, and not a drop more:
“It has been more than a decade since James D. Watson, a founder of modern genetics, landed in a kind of professional exile by suggesting that black people are intrinsically less intelligent than whites. In 2007, Dr. Watson, who shared a 1962 Nobel Prize for describing the double-helix structure of DNA, told a British journalist that he was “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.” Moreover, he added, although he wished everyone were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.” Dr. Watson’s comments reverberated around the world, and he was forced to retire from his job as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, although he retains an office there.”
To reduce the quote length, the short of the long is that the pc police went for Watson, so that he was ultimately forced, for economic reasons to sell his Noble prize medal. The usual array off scientists are quoted saying that anyone disagreeing wit hthe equality maxim is deplorable, or words like that. The happy ending is that Watson has not recanted, and has still rammed it up the politically correct establishment:
““No,’’ Dr. Watson said. “Not at all. I would like for them to have changed, that there be new knowledge that says that your nurture is much more important than nature. But I haven’t seen any knowledge. And there’s a difference on the average between blacks and whites on I.Q. tests. I would say the difference is, it’s genetic.’’ Dr. Watson adds that he takes no pleasure in “the difference between blacks and whites’’ and wishes it didn’t exist. “It’s awful, just like it’s awful for schizophrenics,’’ he says. (His son Rufus was diagnosed in his teens with schizophrenia.) Dr. Watson continues: “If the difference exists, we have to ask ourselves, how can we try and make it better?” Dr. Watson’s remarks may well ignite another firestorm of criticism. At the very least, they will pose a challenge for historians when they take the measure of the man: How should such fundamentally unsound views be weighed against his extraordinary scientific contributions?”
Not a single doubt is raised against the equality maxim, which would be a sheer miracle to be true as a product of natural selection. What after all is exactly equal in this world of approximations? Even if it was not shown that the average IQ of Whites exceeded Blacks, and I have no doubt that there are inherent problems with IQ tests, it does not follow as a matter of logic that the respective IQs of the populations are equal. A much more reasonable scientific hypothesis is that the IQs are indeterminate, not decidable by existing data. Thus, the IQ of the Han Chinese could be underdetermined by available samples given the sheer number of the population, and with contemporary samples having an intrinsic bias towards easy to obtain Western Chinese, or urban Chinese. To say that Watson has failed the basic test of scientificity betrays a clear political bias. But, at this late stage of the game, what else would we expect, since admission of inconvenient sociobiological facts would undermine the shaky edifice of the present regime.