Seattlest: Not So Elementary, Dear Watson

Courtney

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:00:22 -0800

@6: Well i never said I agreed with the man (my background is in Neuroscience which is probably still too "social science" for Watson as well), but I'd rather see a good old-fashioned take-down of his BS that focuses on the science instead of people just running around screaming "That's racist!" Firing him is tantamount to sending a kid to his room to play with his Xbox--it won't change his opinions and I'd rather see him skewered publicly by his peers and the scientific community than sent off somewhere quietly. Interestingly, the Freakonomics guys are on the hunt, and they're not even scientists!

ColoradoPotter

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:20:32 -0800

As someone who is somewhat younger than Watson, but older than Seattlest, I have to say that the man is a jerk. Why is it that, as we get older, we think we can just say any damn thing and it's OK? And somehow, if we're famous, it's even more OK?? The man is well-known in the scientific community for saying such things. Especially sexist. The fact that he was one of the first to understand the structure of DNA doesn't mean much beyond that. (DISCLOSURE: I'm a social scientist and I didn't particularly like his snarky comment that "the Clintons think social science is a real science.") Remember, this was the man who told us that understanding the human genome would explain pretty much everything about people.I'm waiting for discovery of the gene for rudeness...

Courtney

Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:46:37 -0800

I hear you BigGreenFrank, here's my issue personally with Watson. You may think I had the same knee-jerk reaction that everyone else did to his comments (it was our first, instinctual response), but I didn't. Because I know that behind it, is the kind of thinking that he displayed in that response. That's why I was accusing him of being a bad scientist: he'd jumped the gun as far as I could tell, concluding that the jury was in on genetics and human intelligence. In his response, he admits that it most certainly is not. Compare this:"people who have to deal with black employees find this [everyone is equal] not true" with this:We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things. The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity. It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science.It seems I agree wholeheartedly here with Dr. Wilson. People do wish for universal heritage when it comes to "powers of reason," but that's not science. So either someone at the Times Online had it in for him, misquoting maliciously, or he also said some, er, colorful things that he didn't quite mean to come across as they did. Off the cuff, he quite often sounds sexist, and now (to some) racist. On message, he displays his well-earned scientific chops. How to resolve those two personas, that remains a mystery that science might never explain either...

Michael van Baker

Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:46:04 -0800

Until then, we as scientists, wherever we wish to place ourselves in this great debate, should take care in claiming what are unarguable truths without the support of evidence.That's great Watson has decided to adopt the Seattlest-we when talking about "taking great care."

BigGreenFrank

Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:04:58 -0800

"odds are black employees will perform more poorly and you should ignore them if they do" I'm not sure that's what he's saying... I think that's what you WANT him to be saying so that you can make a point. Anyways, Watson responded in his own words today, http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3075642.ece

koggit

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:28:25 -0800

So... you called Watson a bad scientist, but I don't see why. He's a bad scientist for... saying whatever the fuck he wants? For showing potential lack of objectivity? You did the latter in this post, and to call him a bad scientist for the former would just be inane. I'll stay optimistic and assume you're neither inane nor a hypocrite, so, why is he a bad scientist?

Michael van Baker

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:05:20 -0800

Clearly he didn't discover the effects of epigenetics on neurodevelopment. I believe he also has problems with those damn kids not staying off his lawn.