Dr Watson

the world doesn't work like that, science couldn't prove or disprove that aryans were superior to other races 60 years ago - but they presented enough evidence to persuade several nations to buy into their ideology.

you seem to be of the opinion that ideologies are only practiced when their foundations have been conclusively proven.

I'm not suggesting he's wrong or right, I'm no geneticist.

What I'm stating is that with his position comes responsibility... Nazism was founded on the science he is pushing - whether he's wrong or right is not my concern... My concern is the way he presents his findings and the implications they have on greater society.

But even if there is a tendency towards lower intelligence then that doesn't mean you have to cover it up and hide the fact.

It's actually a useful thing to know - if it's true, it allows you to focus educational initiatives at certain ethnic groups, just like we do with people with learning disabilities.

I'm stating that unless you can conclusively prove that africans are genetically less intelligent - as a scientist you shouldn't be making such dangerous statements,

His talk at the Centre for Life on sunday has been cancelled unfortunately. Wouldn't have minded quizzing him on this.

I take your point about aryan supremacy but that alone was not what led to the jewish holocaust. hitler pushed out propaganda and the Jews were accused of being too clever if anything. They had organised a takeover of the german economy was why they had to be got rid of. They were accused of conspiracy rather than stupidity.
What happened in germany of course was complete control of the media by the Nazis and a stifling of any debate. In those conditions it was easy to push bad science because no one was allowed to challenge it. Stifling debate is always counterproductive in the long run because it allows lies to go unchecked. I cannot see a holocaust taking place in any society with genuine free speech, but I can in one where people are banned from speaking. He should have been allowed to speak.

Your just blond Geordie from Wolsingham
blond Geordie from Wolsingham
Your just blond Geordie from Wolsingham
blond Geordie from Wolsingham
Your just blond Geordie from Wolsingham
Geordie from Wolsinghaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaam
:fingerpointingmobsmiley:

i was gona say, youre a geordie arent you joe, you've adopted a religion not the son of an azk-whatever couple and dont have jewish genes

correct me if im wrong tho.

It's been great to see people like Colin Blakemore stepping foward and saying the Science Museum were wrong to stop him speaking. They've been left looking as wrong as Watson.

We're happy to accept that men are generally taller than women, that west africans are generally better middle distace runners than westerners etc etc etc so I don't see any reason why he should be automatically incorrect.

His piece in the independent is balanced, makes some good points and is worth a read:

you're wrong

my grandfather was a rabbi, I have the most jewish surname in the world and I'm of polish ashkenazi stock.

a fine pedigree

andy do you think that david irving should be given platforms to make speeches on?

fair enough. i thought you were a geordie who adopted the religion.

joe who do you think should get to decide who's allowed to speak and who isn't ?

the elected government

in that case you must agree watson should have been allowed to speak since it wasn't the government banning him

I've realised I've perhaps been slightly hypocritical here, because I don't think creationists for example should be allowed to speak at the science museum as the prestigious venue gives false validity to their claims. However, Watson has a distinguished career in science and it might be reasonable to suppose that there is more evidence behind his claims. I wouldn't expect the science museum to give a platform to anyone off the street who wanted to say what Watson did, but I don't know where the cut off lies.

the creationists should be allowed to speak and present their evidence. at which point it would become painfully obvious that they haven't any. But I guess the science museum has an unlimited supply of people wanting to speak so maybe they only need to have people respected by their scientist peers in order to fill all the spots. I guess if the pope was to allow Dawkins to speak at St. Peters then the science museum might be persuaded to do a like for like
I read more about what Watson actually said and that was that the evidence from IQ test scores showed that the Chinese and Japanese were most intelligent followed by Europeans and then Africans. This seems to be a fact. However the validity of standard IQ tests as a true measure of intelligence is very much in doubt as cultural factors are impossible to completely remove.

He was not, as far as I know, going to speak about relative intelligence. A reporter put out the quote that he gave as a throwaway remark in an interview.

what on earth are you talking about, private institutions should always have the ability to provide a platform for whom ever they please how is this a government matter?

your mind works in mysterious ways forks.

lol didn't you dismiss the distinguished Gerald Schroeder?

you don't stink of hypocrisy - you reek of it

LOL I love how you talk about things you know nothing about; the tests you're speaking are completely cultural - asians come out highest (perhaps because from a young age they have to memorise the most complex language on the planet - in both written and spoken forms), then comes the highly educated post-enlightenment west... At the bottom of the heap come africans (and other lesser developed peoples).

Intelligence currently cannot be messured in genetic terms as the brain reprograms itself when it comes into contact with outside stimuli... This is why the vast majority of scientists have accused watson of using his prestige to push his own bigoted agenda.