Is Science Colour Blind?

I believe IQ increases with experience and wisdom at least till middle age when we are possibly at our best particularly where speed is concerned.

Certain groups of people would be advantaged when undergoing testing. How do you test the IQ of an illiterate who has lead a confined life in the Congo?

As for filosofee's opening question.

I hate recommending books but in her case Michael Crighton's latest titled "Next" (2006) is a must read as it deals precisely with the subject matter entailed and a lot more in his own thought provoking way.
It's about gene/cell patenting and it's legal and moral repercussions woven into a fascinating read where even Science can be manipulated in return for funding in the US.

Fiction of course but highly researched on current fact.

Skip this review if disinterested.





Fats.



Genetics Book Review: Michael Crichton’s Next



by Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD on December 3rd, 2006
Just for you, dear reader, I stayed up until 2 a.m. last night finishing Michael Crichton’s biotech thriller, Next. And although the haters will disdain my lowbrow taste, I must confess that I liked it. Overall, I’d give it a B+.
Compared to the other Crichton books I’ve read over the years (I missed the apparently controversial State of Fear), I think Next is far better thought out with some strong belief statements from the author. The plot is multi-layered and fast paced, much like a TV drama so it was fun and easy reading. But if you separate the wheat from the chaff, there’s quite a lot of chaff that I could have done without like the gratuitous sex and the silly online promos, hence the B+.
When it comes down to the impact of genetics and genomics on society, however, Crichton does an amazing job of covering a lot of ground. I wonder how much of it is beyond the average comprehension of non-science literate reader. The most important section of the book, in my opinion, is the end. No, not because it was finished.
In the Author’s Note, Crichton shared his detailed conclusions after doing his research for Next.

1. Stop patenting genes.
   
2. Establish clear guidelines for the use of human tissues.
   
3. Pass laws to ensure that data about gene testing is made public. He’s referring to results of gene therapy trials.
   
4. Avoid bans on research.
   
5. Rescind the Bayh-Dole Act (that allows universities to patent and make money off their research).
   

tac wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:I struggle to see how science can be considered biased or racist in any way. Science involves peer scrutiny of provable predictions. A theory that doesn’t hold up to this scrutiny is then discarded.

People may misconstrue a theory, but then it ceases to be science.

Thing is, zimmy, that science is easily bent to whatever preconceptions a researcher may have and has been much abused in the support of racist ideas.

Even recently "science" has been used to back the theory that African poverty is a problem of genetics . . . disgusting.

Kuhn's structure of scientific revolutions puts paid to positivistic notions of objective science

tac wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:I struggle to see how science can be considered biased or racist in any way. Science involves peer scrutiny of provable predictions. A theory that doesn’t hold up to this scrutiny is then discarded.

People may misconstrue a theory, but then it ceases to be science.

Thing is, zimmy, that science is easily bent to whatever preconceptions a researcher may have and has been much abused in the support of racist ideas.

Even recently "science" has been used to back the theory that African poverty is a problem of genetics . . . disgusting.

That's my point...it's no longer science when used for those ends, but dogma and ideology.

Science will always been mans greatest acheivement.

Invader Zim wrote:

tac wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:I struggle to see how science can be considered biased or racist in any way. Science involves peer scrutiny of provable predictions. A theory that doesn’t hold up to this scrutiny is then discarded.

People may misconstrue a theory, but then it ceases to be science.

Thing is, zimmy, that science is easily bent to whatever preconceptions a researcher may have and has been much abused in the support of racist ideas.

Even recently "science" has been used to back the theory that African poverty is a problem of genetics . . . disgusting.

That's my point...it's no longer science when used for those ends, but dogma and ideology.

Science will always been mans greatest acheivement.

Besides cricket and sunday barbecues . . .

Could those exist without science?

Yes . . . why not?

scientific breakthroughs always have a particular context that gave rise to them...the history of science is often presented as some unfolding carpet of progress...human history (not unlike geological history) is subject to rupture.

Oh look, horrie is posting words at random again.

settle ... horrie's postings are of Confucian sagacity compared with some of the paranoid drivel on the Hair thread

suggest that VoR might need to read more than the credits at the end of Futurama

lardbucket wrote:settle ... horrie's postings are of Confucian sagacity compared with some of the paranoid drivel on the Hair thread

Let me guess who that would be . . .

Anyone with a culturally appropriate IQ reading in credit knows who I'm referring to.

Invader Zim wrote:

tac wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:I struggle to see how science can be considered biased or racist in any way. Science involves peer scrutiny of provable predictions. A theory that doesn’t hold up to this scrutiny is then discarded.

People may misconstrue a theory, but then it ceases to be science.

Thing is, zimmy, that science is easily bent to whatever preconceptions a researcher may have and has been much abused in the support of racist ideas.

Even recently "science" has been used to back the theory that African poverty is a problem of genetics . . . disgusting.

That's my point...it's no longer science when used for those ends, but dogma and ideology.

Science will always been mans greatest acheivement.

And our only hope of a decent future.

filosofee wrote:
(there's an evening with Nobel Prize winner James Watson, 19 October, at the centre, though I receive email-notification wasn't able to secure a ticket, such is his fame/interest in listening to him).

Did I hear that this was cancelled because of Watson's controversial views on intelligence?

Minnesota Fats wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:

tac wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:I struggle to see how science can be considered biased or racist in any way. Science involves peer scrutiny of provable predictions. A theory that doesn’t hold up to this scrutiny is then discarded.

People may misconstrue a theory, but then it ceases to be science.

Thing is, zimmy, that science is easily bent to whatever preconceptions a researcher may have and has been much abused in the support of racist ideas.

Even recently "science" has been used to back the theory that African poverty is a problem of genetics . . . disgusting.

That's my point...it's no longer science when used for those ends, but dogma and ideology.

Science will always been mans greatest acheivement.

And our only hope of a decent future.

But what IF it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that a highly controversial and sensitive theory is correct? Should the scientists involved be allowed to publish their findings?

mynah wrote:

Minnesota Fats wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:

tac wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:I struggle to see how science can be considered biased or racist in any way. Science involves peer scrutiny of provable predictions. A theory that doesn’t hold up to this scrutiny is then discarded.

People may misconstrue a theory, but then it ceases to be science.

Thing is, zimmy, that science is easily bent to whatever preconceptions a researcher may have and has been much abused in the support of racist ideas.

Even recently "science" has been used to back the theory that African poverty is a problem of genetics . . . disgusting.

That's my point...it's no longer science when used for those ends, but dogma and ideology.

Science will always been mans greatest acheivement.

And our only hope of a decent future.

But what IF it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that a highly controversial and sensitive theory is correct? Should the scientists involved be allowed to publish their findings?

Ofcourse they should be. Knowledge shouldn't be hostage to political correctness or emotions.

Those sort of articles usually get knocked from all sides at once - some from the oversensitive PC lobby, and some because they deserve it.

So do Indian scientists make monkey noises at scientists from other countries at international conferences?

Zat wrote:So do Indian scientists make monkey noises at scientists from other countries at international conferences?

Yes, but they're called "non-human primate" noises . . .

Watson got more than he bargained for...

Watson retires after race uproar

tac wrote:

HH_pink wrote:Why is it disgusting already - it 'could' possibly be a valid claim?

I've read the "science" and it is disgusting. Culturally specific IQ testing was used to show that average IQs in Africa were lower than in European nations and thus poverty is a product of genetic stupidity . . . etc.

Funny that Watson should have come out with exactly the crap I was slagging off earlier in this thread . . . spooky

One thing about Watson is that he never shied away from controversy - for better or for worse. In his lifetime he's probably covered all the biggies...

WideWally wrote:

filosofee wrote:
(there's an evening with Nobel Prize winner James Watson, 19 October, at the centre, though I receive email-notification wasn't able to secure a ticket, such is his fame/interest in listening to him).

Did I hear that this was cancelled because of Watson's controversial views on intelligence?

Yes, WW.

London's Science Museum Dana centre was wrong to censor Watson but then Watson was wrong not to continue with his talk at Newcastle's Life centre.
http://www.life.org.uk/about/press/articles/42

Perhaps Watson feared he would not be able to back up, what are, after all, his opinions to robust questioning, on his use of word 'intelligence' when he really meant IQ tests. Watson will be pleased that the BNP - that bastion of British tolerance, have hailed him "The New Galileo".

from here:

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1786


Having attended the 'Scientific Racism: A History" talk (and expecting to attend "Is Science Colour Blind?" during this week) did find the slave-constrainment implements of the 19th century sickening, including those 'medical' objects that were first tested on black female slaves, without anaesthetic, before treating white women. This, in that period known in Western history as "the enlightenment".

Amusing how humans were divided on skulls found to 'show' difference and superiority. Funny that today some scientists argue that our nearest primate, with just 1% DNA difference, be treated with more respect, as human, when colourism is still rife everywhere and female infanticide is rampant in some parts of the world.

filosofee wrote:

WideWally wrote:

filosofee wrote:
(there's an evening with Nobel Prize winner James Watson, 19 October, at the centre, though I receive email-notification wasn't able to secure a ticket, such is his fame/interest in listening to him).

Did I hear that this was cancelled because of Watson's controversial views on intelligence?

Yes, WW.

London's Science Museum Dana centre was wrong to censor Watson but then Watson was wrong not to continue with his talk at Newcastle's Life centre.
http://www.life.org.uk/about/press/articles/42

Perhaps Watson feared he would not be able to back up, what are, after all, his opinions to robust questioning, on his use of word 'intelligence' when he really meant IQ tests. Watson will be pleased that the BNP - that bastion of British tolerance, have hailed him "The New Galileo".

from here:

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1786


Having attended the 'Scientific Racism: A History" talk (and expecting to attend "Is Science Colour Blind?" during this week) did find the slave-constrainment implements of the 19th century sickening, including those 'medical' objects that were first tested on black female slaves, without anaesthetic, before treating white women. This, in that period known in Western history as "the enlightenment".

Amusing how humans were divided on skulls found to 'show' difference and superiority. Funny that today some scientists argue that our nearest primate, with just 1% DNA difference, be treated with more respect, as human, when colourism is still rife everywhere and female infanticide is rampant in some parts of the world.

Our nearest primate has a 5% difference in DNA (though Sreesnath is only 3% different).