In an interview with the news agency, his son Rufus said Dr Watson's statements "might make him out to be a bigot and discriminatory" but that was not true.
"They just represent his rather narrow interpretation of genetic destiny... My dad had made the lab his life, and yet now the lab considers him a liability."
See also The Bell Curve controversy.....Seymour Itzkoff, etc.
Maybe there is some sound research that shows that negroes are inherently genetically smarter than white people, as populations.
You tell me.
If several very well educated conservative negro scientists, say Clarence Thomas types, teamed up, did similar and even better research, and reached similar conclusions about negro intelligence, you wouldn't believe them either.
Nations and intelligence, Wikipedia
Why shouldn't this sensational story queer most of DNA general research findings heretofore?
After all, the same educational background, experimental and clinical techniques, peer review, and intellectual rigor went into his DNA research as went into his views on racial intelligence distinctions apparently, at least according to his son Rufus:
"They just represent his rather narrow interpretation of genetic destiny... My dad had made the lab his life..."
If rigorous scientific research led Watson to racial differences in particular, why shouldn't that same scientific rigor then be held by liberals to queer results for DNA in general?
It is a distinction without a difference apparently in terms of scientific method.
No comments:
Post a Comment