3 ms·

My comment was that I dont see race _when it comes to science_. Science is not influenced by race. Race is not relevant for scientific discussions. I was criti

by x3tm 8y ago

My comment was that I dont see race _when it comes to science_. Science is not influenced by race. Race is not relevant for scientific discussions. I was criticizing the fact that the mixing between race and science is bad at best. Wherever it comes from. Im certainly not denying the existence of racism, and I also don't need anecdotes to know that.

beat 8y ago
Ok. I brought it up because "I don't see race" is a popular rebuttal to any attempt to discuss racism - as if sticking our heads in the sand will protect us from predators. I'm sure you've seen this, too. So when I see it, there's some reflex involved. Science itself is, of course, not influenced by the race of the scientist. However, racism has been rationalized by "science" for centuries, which is what Watson was doing. That's what the article is about. I kind of wish the author had reached back to debunked nonsense like phrenology to show the history of how "scientific racism" works, but it is what it is. I thought the author's point that using exceptionalism to reinforce "scientific racism" was really interesting and important. I think there's a lot of valuable ground to discover if we analyze racism itself through the lens of science, to figure out why so many people will make irrational excuses to justify a morally repugnant belief system.
- x3tm 8y ago
  >Ok. I brought it up because "I don't see race" is a popular rebuttal to any attempt to discuss racism Yes, I got the good intention behind your message. No worries. > I think there's a lot of valuable ground to discover if we analyze racism itself through the lens of science, to figure out why so many people will make irrational excuses to justify a morally repugnant belief system. Of course. But black scientists are not better suited to do that. Not more than Asians or Arabs for instance. That's the core of my comment. Science is just a method.

by x3tm 8y ago

beat 8y ago

Ok. I brought it up because "I don't see race" is a popular rebuttal to any attempt to discuss racism - as if sticking our heads in the sand will protect us from predators. I'm sure you've seen this, too. So when I see it, there's some reflex involved. Science itself is, of course, not influenced by the race of the scientist. However, racism has been rationalized by "science" for centuries, which is what Watson was doing. That's what the article is about. I kind of wish the author had reached back to debunked nonsense like phrenology to show the history of how "scientific racism" works, but it is what it is. I thought the author's point that using exceptionalism to reinforce "scientific racism" was really interesting and important. I think there's a lot of valuable ground to discover if we analyze racism itself through the lens of science, to figure out why so many people will make irrational excuses to justify a morally repugnant belief system.

x3tm 8y ago
>Ok. I brought it up because "I don't see race" is a popular rebuttal to any attempt to discuss racism Yes, I got the good intention behind your message. No worries. > I think there's a lot of valuable ground to discover if we analyze racism itself through the lens of science, to figure out why so many people will make irrational excuses to justify a morally repugnant belief system. Of course. But black scientists are not better suited to do that. Not more than Asians or Arabs for instance. That's the core of my comment. Science is just a method.