4 ms·

Feels like the author writes way too much without saying anything, then ends the article without a real conclusion. I guess maybe "Black scientists are in the

Feels like the author writes way too much without saying anything, then ends the article without a real conclusion. I guess maybe "Black scientists are in the best position to understand what is so broken about the ideas of Watson and his army." was what he was working towards, but that seems like an extraordinarily weak point to make.

beat 8y ago
The strong point was embedded in the text... that "science" becomes a cover for plain old prejudice. And even a bright mind like James Watson can fall for it. edit: If you're one of the downvoters who think my argument is weak, google "phrenology". In the 19th century, it was widely believed that intelligence and character could be measured by the size and shape of the skull - with Europeans on top, of course, and non-white races showing "deformities" that reduce their intelligence and morality. It's totally debunked now, but that's what "scientific racism" sounded like not that long ago. So when I see DNA "science" used to justify racism, I think of phrenology, and think of the possibility that otherwise smart and well-meaning people are using "science" as a shield for their own prejudice.
- jplayer01 8y ago
  It feels prejudiced to me that only black scientists are supposedly able to recognize and defend us all against racism. It's patently absurd. Yes, science, as with any other faith-based belief system, has its proponents who will use it to further their own agenda and gather like-minded people. Yes, this subverts science and its principles. No, this doesn't mean the only people capable of seeing it are black. No, science isn't bad and scientists as a whole aren't bad. He didn't need to write pages of fluff to make a point that he barely ever got around to mentioning.
  - beat 8y ago
    And that's not what the article says, either. Black scientists are in a peculiar place to recognize it, because it actually happens to them. One of the reasons whites don't see so much racism in society is because it's something that happens to someone else. I saw this same article from a different direction, through an old friend of mine who happens to be black (and a large, dark-skinned man) and was a doctor. He was totally bonding on the article, and quite upset about the situation it describes, something he's experienced himself. And it reminded me of when he was in med school, back in the early '90s. He was in his dorm, doing his laundry, and someone assumed he was stealing laundry and called the cops. He was beaten by the cops enough to break ribs, and of course arrested. For doing laundry in his own dorm while black.
dmitriid 8y ago
Because the topic of genes and race is too sensitive for many reasons, both right and wrong. However, we should really be talking about this. - We know that genes affect our physical appearance (hence races are distinguishable between each other). - We know that different races have genetic predisposition to certain diseases (sickle cell disease and people of African ancestry, for example). - We know that genetic studies reveal fascinating history of how people migrated across the globe and how nations are mostly a fictional invention. - We know how genes affect anything from eye color to horrible conditions like Roberts syndrome But we are too afraid to talk about anything beyond these few topics, and how genetic differences between races affect (negatively, neutrally, or positively) people of these races.
- jplayer01 8y ago
  I agree. Any attempt to talk about genes outside of a narrow band is automatically considered racist or sexist. Productive, interesting discussion is killed off before it can begin, which is such an intellectually stifling and medieval way to handle these topics.
- porpoisely 8y ago
  Obviously topics on race need to be covered carefully and sensitively given the destructive history of race, science and politics. However, it still should be covered, investigated and the facts accepted. Sadly, in today's environment, science that conflicts with certain agenda have become blasphemy. It's reminiscent of the anti-science and anti-intellectual days of geocentrism and the catholic church. It's amazing how one of the great scientists of our time has been "excommunicated" and attacked mercilessly for his blashphemy. The strange thing is that the media is using racism themselves to attack the guy.
  - panarky 8y ago
    > science that conflicts with certain agenda have become blasphemy How does that relate to this article? In your assessment, are Watson's claims about race well supported by good science?
- 8y ago

beat 8y ago

The strong point was embedded in the text... that "science" becomes a cover for plain old prejudice. And even a bright mind like James Watson can fall for it. edit: If you're one of the downvoters who think my argument is weak, google "phrenology". In the 19th century, it was widely believed that intelligence and character could be measured by the size and shape of the skull - with Europeans on top, of course, and non-white races showing "deformities" that reduce their intelligence and morality. It's totally debunked now, but that's what "scientific racism" sounded like not that long ago. So when I see DNA "science" used to justify racism, I think of phrenology, and think of the possibility that otherwise smart and well-meaning people are using "science" as a shield for their own prejudice.

jplayer01 8y ago
It feels prejudiced to me that only black scientists are supposedly able to recognize and defend us all against racism. It's patently absurd. Yes, science, as with any other faith-based belief system, has its proponents who will use it to further their own agenda and gather like-minded people. Yes, this subverts science and its principles. No, this doesn't mean the only people capable of seeing it are black. No, science isn't bad and scientists as a whole aren't bad. He didn't need to write pages of fluff to make a point that he barely ever got around to mentioning.
- beat 8y ago
  And that's not what the article says, either. Black scientists are in a peculiar place to recognize it, because it actually happens to them. One of the reasons whites don't see so much racism in society is because it's something that happens to someone else. I saw this same article from a different direction, through an old friend of mine who happens to be black (and a large, dark-skinned man) and was a doctor. He was totally bonding on the article, and quite upset about the situation it describes, something he's experienced himself. And it reminded me of when he was in med school, back in the early '90s. He was in his dorm, doing his laundry, and someone assumed he was stealing laundry and called the cops. He was beaten by the cops enough to break ribs, and of course arrested. For doing laundry in his own dorm while black.

dmitriid 8y ago

Because the topic of genes and race is too sensitive for many reasons, both right and wrong. However, we should really be talking about this. - We know that genes affect our physical appearance (hence races are distinguishable between each other). - We know that different races have genetic predisposition to certain diseases (sickle cell disease and people of African ancestry, for example). - We know that genetic studies reveal fascinating history of how people migrated across the globe and how nations are mostly a fictional invention. - We know how genes affect anything from eye color to horrible conditions like Roberts syndrome But we are too afraid to talk about anything beyond these few topics, and how genetic differences between races affect (negatively, neutrally, or positively) people of these races.

jplayer01 8y ago
I agree. Any attempt to talk about genes outside of a narrow band is automatically considered racist or sexist. Productive, interesting discussion is killed off before it can begin, which is such an intellectually stifling and medieval way to handle these topics.
porpoisely 8y ago
Obviously topics on race need to be covered carefully and sensitively given the destructive history of race, science and politics. However, it still should be covered, investigated and the facts accepted. Sadly, in today's environment, science that conflicts with certain agenda have become blasphemy. It's reminiscent of the anti-science and anti-intellectual days of geocentrism and the catholic church. It's amazing how one of the great scientists of our time has been "excommunicated" and attacked mercilessly for his blashphemy. The strange thing is that the media is using racism themselves to attack the guy.
- panarky 8y ago
  > science that conflicts with certain agenda have become blasphemy How does that relate to this article? In your assessment, are Watson's claims about race well supported by good science?
8y ago