Quote:
Originally Posted by D
But dealing with ideas of such a nature in scientific circles - where people truly understand the material, and work toward discovery one way or the other is one thing. Disseminating such hypotheses among the masses - and thus giving hate-mongers validation, with nothing but speculative and hypothetical science attached is perhaps irresponsible on Dr. Watson's part, I think.
|
I agree with you and Esnem. I think that Watson's hypothesis is valid and can be researched if that's something he or others are interested in. However, his
opinions about Africa or Black employees is completely unscientific and completely irresponsible on his part (thus, I do think that he is likely a bitter old coot). Condemning him on this basis is more than fair in my opinion because the statements are in fact, bigotted.
As for the nature vs nurture debate: I think that nurture plays a much larger role for most people, but that nature plays a more significant role for the exceptional among us who are able to transend the limitations of their own time. Most of us regardless of race, share similar faculties, and we are heavily influenced by the things around us. Furthermore, nature influences nurture (genetics) to a great degree - if we accept evolution, nature is practically the primemover of genetics; and it is what provides all the raw materials internally and externally.
If somebody wishes to study population groups for various metric differences, that's fine. There is an inherent danger in this, but that should not stop the pursuit of knowledge. It is likely that we can all benefit from it, if that same knowledge is used for good. Personally, I would stick with INDIVIDUAL differences rather than race because of the the numerous confounding variables. But that's just the approach I would take.