The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Nobel Laureate's Talk on Cancer Research Deplatformed by Science Denialists
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

From the Chicago Tribune:

U. of I. cancels talk by Nobel laureate after faculty raises concerns about his views on race, intelligence

Associated Press

The University of Illinois has cancelled plans to host a talk by Nobel Laureate James Watson after faculty raised concerns about his discredited views on race and intelligence. …

Watson, 89, co-discovered the structure of DNA and has a history of racially insensitive comments.

Robinson said Watson initially reached out to the institute to give a “narrowly focused scientific talk” about his cancer research in conjunction with a planned visit to a colleague’s lab. Robinson said he wasn’t surprised by faculty members’ reaction.

“We tried to consider this very carefully in going forward, and different perspectives on the possibilities of him giving a science-based lecture,” he said. “With respect to his past, the email that I sent out stated very clearly that we didn’t condone any of his past comments, racist comments and sexist comments. And we noted that he had apologized and thought about all those very carefully.” …

Watson’s most notable racially insensitive comments were made during a book tour in 2007, when he told the Sunday Times of London he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”…

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
    []
  1. The female math professor who wants whites to quit

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/16659/racist-professor-tells-white-men-quit-or-be-hank-berrien

    posted her dissertation online:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PiperThesisPostPrint.pdf

    Here is a quote from it:

    (I can’t even pretend to know how “normal” mathematicians feel when they read math, but I know it’s not how I feel.) My thesis is, in many ways, not very serious, sometimes sarcastic, brutally honest, and very me.

    It is my art. It is myself. It is also as mathematically complete as I could honestly make it.

    She is so consumed by “diversity” that she won’t discuss math:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/2015/12/why-i-do-not-talk-about-math/

    As a rule, I do not discuss math with mathematicians if I can at all avoid it. I would like to tell you why, but it’s complicated. You can never make assumptions about a marginalized person’s character based solely on behavior. Oppression creates behaviors that wouldn’t otherwise be there, and if you are not going through the same oppression, you can’t know how you would behave.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    YouCan't, The new buzz word of the radical left is "marginalized." Seems to be replacing micro aggression . I can't wait to see their next go to word.
    , @jtgw
    So oppressed that she got a PhD from an Ivy League university and a tenure-track position in a pleasant location.

    I can't judge the quality of her research, though I can judge the flippant style of her writing. Any mathematicians care to weigh in?

    Also apparently 6 years late in her thesis. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/865223680586067968

    Any bets as to how much of it was ghostwritten?
    , @Kylie
    "(I can’t even pretend to know how 'normal' mathematicians feel when they read math, but I know it’s not how I feel.) "

    Logic is not exactly her strong suit, is it? Lucky for her the ability to think logically is apparently no longer necessary for a student of higher mathematics at an Ivy League institution.
    , @Achmed E. Newman

    As a rule, I do not discuss math with mathematicians if I can at all avoid it. I would like to tell you why, but it’s complicated.
     
    In other words you don't understand number theory, and you can't do integration by parts. Join the party, pal!

    Just come out and say it lady, "math is hard". We won't think any less of you (well no, of course you can't keep your job.)
    , @Percy Gryce
    I looked briefly at her dissertation: "The Equidistribution of Lattice Shapes of Rings of Integers of Cubic, Quartic, and Quintic Number Fields: an Artist’s Rendering." I can't make hide or hair of the math, but it seemed to me that she was attempting to inject a little humor and humanity into it.

    But then I saw this comment on a mathblog that she had been invited to write

    https://mathbabe.org/2015/12/11/piper-harron-discusses-her-artistic-and-wonderful-math-ph-d-thesis

    first, thank you for reading my post and looking at my thesis!!!!
    i have really struggled with whether and how to respond to this. The execution of this message was very nice and respectful, and I genuinely appreciate that. The premise, however, is problematic. Maybe not inherently, but within the context of the sexist society we live in. Men are allowed, and often feel compelled, to think out loud at women, to share unsolicited not necessarily informed thoughts at women. (And usually these men, unlike you, don’t even seem to recognize that their thoughts may not be useful.) Women on the other hand aren’t allowed to be as open. So, if you want to not just be respectful, but actually be anti-oppression, it is better (IMO) not to respond to a woman’s work with the types of thoughts that other men pawn off as insights, if you know what i mean. again, i appreciate your honesty, but i feel obligated to point these things out.
     
    And determined that she is entirely humorless if not mentally ill.

    Funny, though, she's got room for cishet white patriarchy in her personal life:

    https://math.hawaii.edu/~rharron/
    , @Dr. X
    People who are not part of the academic environment have a difficult time understanding how blatant and pervasive the anti-male, anti-white, anti-conservative discrimination really is.

    Several years ago I worked at a community college. They had an opening for a history professor and they wanted to hire someone to teach African-American History. The dean's preferred candidate was a black kid who failed out of, or withdrew from, 11 undergraduate courses at a prestigious state college before transferring to one with basically open admissions. He hadn't yet completed an M.A.; the dean wanted him to teach college with only a Bachelor's. (I voiced my opposition, but I was not yet tenured, so they started inventing reasons to show me the door, which they did as soon as my contract was up).

    One of our part-timers, a very liberal white woman with 20+ years of secondary teaching who had obtained a PhD in education and written a textbook wanted to apply for the job, but they wouldn't even give her an interview (despite the fact that the department had a policy of interviewing part-timers when a full-time opening came up). Wrong skin color.

    I worked at another college where the lone black token faculty member dressed and spoke as if he were a wino on the street. He was a professor of "communications;" his standard greeting for everyone -- (if he said anything at all, often he just grunted) was "'Sup, maaaaan...."

    He was, of course, tenured.

    , @Georg H
    This young woman seems To have deftly combined the most dispiriting elements of Hobbesianism and Marxism. Life is a brutal negative sum game, so take out the haves, take em out and expunge their very memory. Maybe she's watched too much Hunger Games, or maybe not. Too much cisheteronormative white stuff there for her indelicate sensibilities. May she repent now or share eternity in the circle of hell occupied by cisheteronormative mansplainers.
    , @J1234
    Thanks for the link, YCMTU. This sort of validates what I've said about blacks, as a group (that's important), being drawn to the idea of authoritarian group hierarchy. She's implying that it isn't the general principle of racial discrimination that's wrong, it's racial discrimination towards blacks that's wrong. Racial discrimination, she seems to imply, can be a useful tool in some context.

    Not too different from American blacks of today being obsessed about the enslavement of blacks in America 150 years ago, yet largely indifferent to the legal enslavement and serfdom of blacks in Africa ten years ago, or the illegal enslavement of them that continues today. Again, it seems that who is enslaving them is more important than the fact that they're being enslaved. Could that be a reason why blacks in the 19th century were unwilling to initiate their own emancipation?

    , @Anonymous
    If only Leibniz, Newton, Euclid, Descartes, Fermat, and hundreds of other lesser known cis white men had just stayed out of mathematics, we might already have the race neutral math that leftist academians have been pushing for these days, that everyone can do equally well because all answers are correct.

    We might not have sent a man to the moon, but hey, that was racist (it was white men), it was sexist, and it was a macroagression to the self esteem of People of Color of other countries all around the world, who didn't make the achievement. So in other words, it was an unspeakable evil that never should have been allowed to happen anyway.

    , @Rosamond Vincy
    So what kind of math doesn't she discuss with mathematicians? Topology? Functional Analysis? Fractals?
    'I can’t even pretend to know how “normal” mathematicians feel when they read math, but I know it’s not how I feel.' -- Never met a "normal" mathematician, but most of them don't want to discuss their feelings at all. They hate that squishy stuff.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/more-deplatforming-by-science-denialists/#comment-1877904
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. … more ROBUST than insensitive …
    and :
    Do these easily lead Illinois folk know about the deplorable wrongs done to
    the Dark Lady of DNA ?
    Get your teeth into that, ladettes .

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Fun fact: Kevin MacDonald did a post-doctoral fellowship at the University of Illinois, and Revilo P Oliver taught there for years.

    So, apparently, things have changed.

    (Incidentally, another fun fact about the city of Champaign, IL is that it seems to be where the term "polar bear hunting" originated.)
  3. Watson, 89, co-discovered the structure of DNA and has a history of racially insensitive comments.

    This man is responsible for one of the biggest scientific discoveries in the last century and it’s completely neutralized by his insensitive comments. This pretty much sums up our current zeitgeist.

    They’re going to force this epithet onto his tombstone, before they knock it over.

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    This man is responsible for one of the biggest scientific discoveries in the last century...
     
    I think statements like this are rather overstating the real magnitude of the accomplishment. Was elucidating the structure of DNA really that vital and pressing a problem? Why is it ranked among the world's greatest scientific achievements? Is it due to the sheer difficulty of the problem itself or perhaps the greatness of the benefits that flowed from its resolution? It can't be. The problem was not even a particularly challenging one; and although the prospects of genetic medicine and genetic engineering have generated endless amounts of enthusiasm over the decades, their actual results have been both small and sparse.

    I suspect that the lauding of Watson and Crick and their supposedly game-changing discovery has more to do with the fact that it seemed to place the keystone into the whole Darwinian-materialist narrative that was embraced by their generation of Leftist intellectuals. This was literally their Holy Grail, as it purported to provide both the substrate on which mutations occurred and the mechanism for transmitting them from one generation to the next. Without DNA or something very much like it, the whole Darwinian edifice is in real trouble. DNA is exactly what was needed to keep the theory intact.

    But what if DNA doesn't really do that? What if the whole notion of "information transfer" in living organisms is a flawed paradigm? Then there is no Holy Grail, and Darwinism is seen for what it really is, i.e. a schema, a program of taxonomic classification deified into a theory of origins. And suddenly, the discovery of the double-helix structure of a certain biomolecule doesn't seem so worthy of adulation.

    I don't want to see anybody sacrificed to political correctness, but Watson is reaping the whirlwind he helped to sow. There is a clear historical progression from his own belief in the all-explaining power of materialist-reductionist reasoning to his attackers' belief in their invincible Narrative. The true significance of this deplatforming is that it means the Left now feels that it can dispense with Darwinism. It no longer has any use for mild-mannered atheists and progressive intellectuals in their tweed jackets and knit ties. It can simply unleash its hordes of canailles with their untrammeled intentions to plunder and destroy.
    , @Anonymous
    It's already an established belief that the key discoveries were made by Franklin and that Watson is just a plagiarist. This line will be pushed hard in future.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Watson, 89, co-discovered the structure of DNA and has a history of racially insensitive comments.

    They’re going to force this epithet onto his tombstone, before they knock it over.
     
    The above would actually be a pretty cool epitaph. His tombstone should be pyramid-shaped and have a wide base to discourage toppling.
  4. Rosalind Franklin had the structure of DNA staring her in the face and didn’t even see it. Lol at her “discovering the double-helix structure.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Rosalind Franklin had the structure of DNA staring her in the face and didn’t even see it.
     
    Not quite as bad as you put it but with her being a professional crystallographer and still not realizing the significance of the space group she determined - all the while a self-taught Crick did - that stings. The experimental data was still not good enough for her to get the exact structure, even if she had an insight on what C2 means in physical world. Not without realizing the significance of Chargaff's rule, anyway. Which Watson did - and which was just about the only significant contribution he made.
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    Poor Rosy never made near the fuss about Patriarchal Oppression that the SJWs who use her as a slogan are doing now. She was too busy trying to do her job.
  5. Wow, all this for comments made 10 years ago… Pour encourager les autres, I suppose.

    Watson’s most notable racially insensitive comments were made during a book tour in 2007, when he told the Sunday Times of London he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”…

    When was this “discredited”? By whom? Any sources? Is the question whether the comments were “racially insensitive” or whether they are true?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Dumbo, And yet when Africans are treated to the benefits of Western Civilization, and the benefactors leave, you wind up with the shithole that is current Africa, and it's population can't flee it fast enough.
    , @Alfa158
    Discredited by the hive mind, no sources needed. If the hive mind says it is discredited, disproved, junk, de-bunked, etc, then no proof is necessary.
    The Church didn't bother to disprove the heliocentric model of the solar system, they simply declared it heretical, burned Bruno at the stake and forced Galilei to recant. Both the hive mind and the Church acted that way because they could not bear the consequences to their philosophy of the heretics being right, so they simply rejected reality and substituted their own. (As the old bumper sticker says)
    , @EdwardM
    It is outrageously scurrilous to simply assert that his views are "discredited" as if that's an objective fact. Didn't the "journalists" learn in school not to use the passive voice, this passage being a textbook example of why?
    , @Unladen Swallow
    Repetition of lies makes them truths I believe is what they think. It's like having to prove you are holier than thou. Did I mention that he is racist, sexist, and everything else bad? Yes, so now you don't have to listen to him about anything.
    , @Unladen Swallow
    Shocked that U of Illinois has fallen this far, or maybe just a handful of hard core leftys made it happen, but the administration caved, that wouldn't surprise me either.
  6. @YouCan'tMakeThisUp
    The female math professor who wants whites to quit

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/16659/racist-professor-tells-white-men-quit-or-be-hank-berrien

    posted her dissertation online:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PiperThesisPostPrint.pdf

    Here is a quote from it:


    (I can’t even pretend to know how “normal” mathematicians feel when they read math, but I know it’s not how I feel.) My thesis is, in many ways, not very serious, sometimes sarcastic, brutally honest, and very me.

    It is my art. It is myself. It is also as mathematically complete as I could honestly make it.


     

    She is so consumed by "diversity" that she won't discuss math:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/2015/12/why-i-do-not-talk-about-math/

    As a rule, I do not discuss math with mathematicians if I can at all avoid it. I would like to tell you why, but it’s complicated. You can never make assumptions about a marginalized person’s character based solely on behavior. Oppression creates behaviors that wouldn’t otherwise be there, and if you are not going through the same oppression, you can’t know how you would behave.

     

    YouCan’t, The new buzz word of the radical left is “marginalized.” Seems to be replacing micro aggression . I can’t wait to see their next go to word.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kylie
    "I can’t wait to see their next go to word."

    I hope we neither see it or hear it because it's "HELP!!!" as they go under in international waters.
  7. @Dumbo
    Wow, all this for comments made 10 years ago... Pour encourager les autres, I suppose.

    Watson’s most notable racially insensitive comments were made during a book tour in 2007, when he told the Sunday Times of London he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”…

     

    When was this "discredited"? By whom? Any sources? Is the question whether the comments were "racially insensitive" or whether they are true?

    Dumbo, And yet when Africans are treated to the benefits of Western Civilization, and the benefactors leave, you wind up with the shithole that is current Africa, and it’s population can’t flee it fast enough.

    Read More
  8. Universities are returning to their historic functions as the enforcers of religious orthodoxy (the High Church of Absolute Equality and Negro Veneration). Heretics such as Dr. Watson have no place in such institutions. Even their speech and writings must be ruthlessly suppressed lest they contaminate the body of the faithful.

    Martin Luther received a fairer hearing at the Diet of Worms in 1521 than people such as James Watson or Charles Murray are getting at 21st Century universities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Martin Luther received a fairer hearing at the Diet of Worms in 1521 than people such as James Watson or Charles Murray are getting at 21st Century universities.
     
    Wow,just wow! You really want to equate an ol white raciss bein told to stay outta our safe space to the torture of the great Revren DOCTOR Kang where they made him eat worms?! I caint even .....

    .... finish my chitlens.


    You tryinna marginalize my black ass, bitch?!

  9. “Sometimes when my thoughts about the future are particularly gloomy, I find myself feeling more and more lighthearted.” — Sir Randolph Nettleby as played by James Mason in the film “The Shooting Party”

    The guy who discovered the structure of DNA says he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”

    Sub-Saharan Africans are less innately intelligent than Whites and East Asians. If you say that today in academia you will be attacked and slandered.

    The current denial of innate genetic racial differences in the European Christian nations is at its peak. They can’t get anymore rabid than they are now.

    Read More
  10. I hear Japanese universities tend to welcome such faculty, if he wishes to make a change.

    Read More
  11. @YouCan'tMakeThisUp
    The female math professor who wants whites to quit

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/16659/racist-professor-tells-white-men-quit-or-be-hank-berrien

    posted her dissertation online:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PiperThesisPostPrint.pdf

    Here is a quote from it:


    (I can’t even pretend to know how “normal” mathematicians feel when they read math, but I know it’s not how I feel.) My thesis is, in many ways, not very serious, sometimes sarcastic, brutally honest, and very me.

    It is my art. It is myself. It is also as mathematically complete as I could honestly make it.


     

    She is so consumed by "diversity" that she won't discuss math:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/2015/12/why-i-do-not-talk-about-math/

    As a rule, I do not discuss math with mathematicians if I can at all avoid it. I would like to tell you why, but it’s complicated. You can never make assumptions about a marginalized person’s character based solely on behavior. Oppression creates behaviors that wouldn’t otherwise be there, and if you are not going through the same oppression, you can’t know how you would behave.

     

    So oppressed that she got a PhD from an Ivy League university and a tenure-track position in a pleasant location.

    I can’t judge the quality of her research, though I can judge the flippant style of her writing. Any mathematicians care to weigh in?

    Also apparently 6 years late in her thesis. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/865223680586067968

    Any bets as to how much of it was ghostwritten?

    Read More
    • Replies: @new handle
    That math person at University of Hawaii - Manoa will have to lobby the state of Hawaii next to get rid of the Man in Manoa. That is similar to what those old lesbians did in the 1980s with their books marked up to write womyn or womon to over-write a word with man in it. How did that work out for them? Their flannel shirts got worn out and they got obese and impoverished, that is how it worked out for them.
    , @Mr. Anon

    Any bets as to how much of it was ghostwritten?
     
    Well, there is this from her acknowlegements:

    "Finally, I’d like to thank my husband, Robert Harron, for always being at the aforementioned underground establishment, for being a night owl, for being a number theorist, for being an informal advisor, for being an unpaid copy-editor, for increasing the amount of truth in my thesis, and all sorts of help with everything."

    So, I'd say the chances are...........even money.

    By the way, this is the abstract from her dissertation:

    "A fascinating tale of mayhem, mystery, and mathematics. Attached to each degree n number field is a rank n−1 lattice called its shape. This thesis shows that the shapes of Sn-number fields (of degree n=3, 4, or 5) become equidistributed as the absolute discriminant of the number field goes to infinity. The result for n=3 is due to David Terr. Here, we provide a unified proof for n = 3, 4 , and 5 based on the parametrizations of low rank rings due to Bhargava and Delone-Faddeev. We do not assume any of those words make any kind of sense, though we do make certain assumptions about how much time the reader has on her hands and what kind of sense of humor she has."

    Perhaps all those words don't make much sense to her.

    , @Pericles

    Any bets as to how much of it was ghostwritten?

     

    Very good point. The whole thing seemed flippant ("humorous") and unserious, and the author seems very cagey about her math skills, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if the technical parts turned out to be, ahem, sourced from somebody else. Forget it, Jake, it's Ivy League. But how can they participate in something like this? I said forget it.
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    Don't PhD candidates have to defend their dissertations in front of a committee? How could she answer questions about something she hadn't written, unless they deliberately asked her soft questions in order to fill a quo--oh never mind. Silly me.
  12. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “racially insensitive comments” – Because science is about nothing but pamdering to dumb dindus.

    Seriously, these triggered Snowflakes are the reason why they didn’t used to allow women to get an academic education. They have no regard to truth or justice whatsoever; it’s all about muh feelings, muh respectable middle class manners. .

    Read More
  13. This is madness.

    At the moment, a residential college dean at Yale is in hot water over some less-than-diplomatic Yelp reviews. What is most striking about the reviews is just how vapid she sounds. Someone so shallow is a faculty member at Yale, but the discoverer of DNA is not worthy to speak in Urbana.

    The Yale Daily News has compiled the reviews:

    http://ydn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Chu_reviews.pdf

    Read More
  14. The ironic thing is that many of these people denouncing James Watson, who’s one of America’s greatest scientists, were probably marching in that science march.

    Read More
  15. According to the one drop rule James D. Watson is as equally Black as a purple skin/blue skin Sudanese Dinka, so he can’t be a racist.

    Read More
  16. @jtgw
    So oppressed that she got a PhD from an Ivy League university and a tenure-track position in a pleasant location.

    I can't judge the quality of her research, though I can judge the flippant style of her writing. Any mathematicians care to weigh in?

    Also apparently 6 years late in her thesis. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/865223680586067968

    Any bets as to how much of it was ghostwritten?

    That math person at University of Hawaii – Manoa will have to lobby the state of Hawaii next to get rid of the Man in Manoa. That is similar to what those old lesbians did in the 1980s with their books marked up to write womyn or womon to over-write a word with man in it. How did that work out for them? Their flannel shirts got worn out and they got obese and impoverished, that is how it worked out for them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Percy Gryce
    Everyone is calling her a math prof at U Hawaii, but from her personal webpage:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/

    it appears that she's a stay-at-home mom of two while her pale, stale, male partner is the one with the tenure-track job:

    https://math.hawaii.edu/wordpress/people/rharron/

    I wonder if that's the source of her anger.

  17. @Steve from Detroit
    Watson, 89, co-discovered the structure of DNA and has a history of racially insensitive comments.

    This man is responsible for one of the biggest scientific discoveries in the last century and it's completely neutralized by his insensitive comments. This pretty much sums up our current zeitgeist.

    They're going to force this epithet onto his tombstone, before they knock it over.

    This man is responsible for one of the biggest scientific discoveries in the last century…

    I think statements like this are rather overstating the real magnitude of the accomplishment. Was elucidating the structure of DNA really that vital and pressing a problem? Why is it ranked among the world’s greatest scientific achievements? Is it due to the sheer difficulty of the problem itself or perhaps the greatness of the benefits that flowed from its resolution? It can’t be. The problem was not even a particularly challenging one; and although the prospects of genetic medicine and genetic engineering have generated endless amounts of enthusiasm over the decades, their actual results have been both small and sparse.

    I suspect that the lauding of Watson and Crick and their supposedly game-changing discovery has more to do with the fact that it seemed to place the keystone into the whole Darwinian-materialist narrative that was embraced by their generation of Leftist intellectuals. This was literally their Holy Grail, as it purported to provide both the substrate on which mutations occurred and the mechanism for transmitting them from one generation to the next. Without DNA or something very much like it, the whole Darwinian edifice is in real trouble. DNA is exactly what was needed to keep the theory intact.

    But what if DNA doesn’t really do that? What if the whole notion of “information transfer” in living organisms is a flawed paradigm? Then there is no Holy Grail, and Darwinism is seen for what it really is, i.e. a schema, a program of taxonomic classification deified into a theory of origins. And suddenly, the discovery of the double-helix structure of a certain biomolecule doesn’t seem so worthy of adulation.

    I don’t want to see anybody sacrificed to political correctness, but Watson is reaping the whirlwind he helped to sow. There is a clear historical progression from his own belief in the all-explaining power of materialist-reductionist reasoning to his attackers’ belief in their invincible Narrative. The true significance of this deplatforming is that it means the Left now feels that it can dispense with Darwinism. It no longer has any use for mild-mannered atheists and progressive intellectuals in their tweed jackets and knit ties. It can simply unleash its hordes of canailles with their untrammeled intentions to plunder and destroy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Emblematic
    "materialist-reductionist reasoning" has been very successful. What would you prefer?
    , @David Davenport
    Without DNA or something very much like it, the whole Darwinian edifice is in real trouble. DNA is exactly what was needed to keep the theory intact.

    But DNA is real. None of your verbalizing can make it go away, Mr. Heidegger Dasein.

    And yet it moves

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    For the video game, see And Yet It Moves.

    "Eppur si muove" redirects here. For other uses, see Eppur si muove (disambiguation).

    Portrait, attributed to Bartolomé Esteban Murillo, of Galileo Galilei gazing at the wall of his prison cell, on which are scratched the words "E pur si muove" (not legible in this image).

    "And yet it moves" or "Albeit it does move" (Italian: E pur si muove or Eppur si muove [epˈpur si ˈmwɔːve]) is a phrase attributed to the Italian mathematician, physicist and philosopher Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) in 1633 after being forced to recant his claims that the Earth moves around the immovable[1] Sun rather than the converse during the Galileo affair.[2]

    In this context, the implication of the phrase is: despite his recantation, the Church's proclamations to the contrary, or any other conviction or doctrine of men, the Earth does, in fact, move (around the Sun, and not vice versa). As such, the phrase is used today as a sort of pithy retort implying that "it doesn't matter what you believe; these are the facts."


    But what if DNA doesn’t really do that? What if the whole notion of “information transfer” in living organisms is a flawed paradigm?

    And yet it moves.
  18. (I can’t even pretend to know how “normal” mathematicians feel when they read math, but I know it’s not how I feel.) My thesis is, in many ways, not very serious, sometimes sarcastic, brutally honest, and very me.

    Why should you be any different than the rapping debaters or the rapping PhD thesis submitter.

    It is my art. It is myself. It is also as mathematically complete as I could honestly make it.

    An honest admission at least!

    …..oh you’ll go far darlin…..just probably not in math!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    Hell,she couldn't shine the shoes of the Hidden Figures!
  19. This stuff undermines the realm of fiction (and satire). Reminds me of stories from the Eastern Block, we once laughed about.

    Read More
  20. @Buffalo Joe
    YouCan't, The new buzz word of the radical left is "marginalized." Seems to be replacing micro aggression . I can't wait to see their next go to word.

    “I can’t wait to see their next go to word.”

    I hope we neither see it or hear it because it’s “HELP!!!” as they go under in international waters.

    Read More
  21. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I’m not fazed by the Yale dragon dean’s tetchy reviews. I think they’re hilarious. She reminds me of a lot of the “donut lady” moms I’d not just overhear but directly have to endure rants from which, growing up in the San Gabriel Valley. Except they weren’t donut ladies, they were all #$&#%@ rich housewives. America made vibranter & vibranter

    Read More
  22. This strikes me as showing progress. Until quite recently people were not heard in academia because they were Jews. A few centuries before that because they were not Church of England.

    This is simply a religious test. When I went to school we were expected to believe the Trinity. The heart of most major religions is a doctrine that makes no sense at all but must be believed by the faithful. The crazier and more contra-factual the idea, the more rabid the believers are in enforcing the boundaries of religious orthodoxy.

    Galileo believed in the images he saw in his telescope. Giordano Bruno, just a few years before, had burned for a similar preference for demonstrable facts over established dogma. So there is some hope. In a few years we may be able to speak openly about facts about the races and intelligence that no informed person today can really dispute. The guardians of the faith are slowly (very damn slowly) losing their power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    >Galileo believed in the images he saw in his telescope. Giordano Bruno…had burned for a similar preference for demonstrable facts over established dogma.

    What is with all the bad-history Galileo references on this site recently?

    Let’s begin with your second howler: Bruno’s trial for heresy wasn't about “preference for demonstrable facts". Rather, his denial of dogmas such as eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ -- not to mention his advocacy of reincarnation (the “demonstrable fact” of that is presumably beyond dispute to some people around here) -- was more than enough to get him a death sentence. If you have evidence that his "preference for demonstrable facts" was among the charges, produce it.

    As for Galileo, his run-in with the Vatican likewise had little to do with what he “believed” about any images.


    In fact, many of Galileo's staunchest champions and defenders were churchmen and many of his attackers were fellow scientists….The Church was also quite open to the ideas of Copernicus. Copernicus himself was aware that there were several strong objections to his model...and hesitated publishing… But he was strongly encouraged by Bishop Giese of Culm… Initial objections to [Galileo’s] telescopic observations were overturned when Jesuit astronomers ...made their own telescopes and repeated his results…. by 1616 there were no less than seven competing cosmological models under discussion in scientific circles and, as some of the leading scholars of the day, churchmen were in the thick of these debates...but the science of the day tended to continue to favour geocentrism. Galileo's position was actually in a minority amongst the scientists of the time and this was well understood by scientifically-literate churchmen.
     
    But wait, you say. Did not Galileo “prove” heliocentrism by way of those images he saw in his telescope?

    Alas, no such luck:


    As Galileo and all other astronomers of the time knew, there were several serious objections to heliocentrism which were, at that stage, hard to definitively dismiss. The lack of an observable stellar parallax was one and several problems involving the inertia caused by a revolving earth were another. Both were the reasons the ancient Greeks had rejected heliocentrism in the first place and neither were conclusively solved until long after Galileo's death [the parallax issue wasn’t definitely answered until 1838].

    So while Galileo argued strongly for the Copernican model, he did not "prove" heliocentrism conclusively. He was also wrong about several key details - particularly the shape of planetary orbits (he rejected Kepler's theory of elliptical orbits and clung to circular ones) and his idea that the tides were caused by the earth's rotation. The idea that he proved heliocentrism is myth.
     

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-historical-event/answer/Tim-ONeill-1

    If you’re going to speak out in favor of evidence and "demonstrable fact", it behooves you not to litter your posts with Black Legend fabrications. Leave that to the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson.

  23. @Dumbo
    Wow, all this for comments made 10 years ago... Pour encourager les autres, I suppose.

    Watson’s most notable racially insensitive comments were made during a book tour in 2007, when he told the Sunday Times of London he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”…

     

    When was this "discredited"? By whom? Any sources? Is the question whether the comments were "racially insensitive" or whether they are true?

    Discredited by the hive mind, no sources needed. If the hive mind says it is discredited, disproved, junk, de-bunked, etc, then no proof is necessary.
    The Church didn’t bother to disprove the heliocentric model of the solar system, they simply declared it heretical, burned Bruno at the stake and forced Galilei to recant. Both the hive mind and the Church acted that way because they could not bear the consequences to their philosophy of the heretics being right, so they simply rejected reality and substituted their own. (As the old bumper sticker says)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Crispin
    It's been some time since I thought of myself as a mathematician, but considering that her thesis adviser was Manjul Bhargava - a Fields Medal winner - I'm confident that the pure "math" of her thesis is solid.

    And I've no problem with the style of her thesis: Paul Halmos, one of the better mathematicians of the 20th century, wrote an insightful article on the problems that mathematicians have in speaking with laymen - his term!

    http://math.slu.edu/~srivastava/Halmos.pdf

    All that said, I think that Dr. Herron will be disappointed in the results if things really do get torn down ...
    , @Lurker
    You might want to re-think some of the Galileo narrative.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-historical-event/answer/Tim-ONeill-1

    Update: I see that link has already been posted.

  24. Truly insane and medieval. Rivals the persecution of Galileo.

    These thugs in academic robs should be kowtowing in homage at Watson’s feet rather than ostracizing him.

    Future Chinese scholars will examine this episode in the history of the extinct Western World with wonder.

    Slightly related

    68 year old Bob Beckel, a vile liberal was given the boot a second time by Fox News today. He made some offhand remark to Negro co-worker that was interpreted as raciss on Tuesday, just three days ago. Talk about being hoisted on one’s own petard.

    So this man with 50 years involvement in American politics, Mondale’s ’84 campaign manager, is unceremoniously shitcanned 72 hours after some trivial slip of the tongue outed him as not worthy of employment.

    What a f*cked up world we live in. Despite Trump, despite historic Repub margins in Congress, political correctness has a greater stranglehold on America than ever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes

    Despite Trump, despite historic Repub margins in Congress, political correctness has a greater stranglehold on America than ever.
     
    Oh, the PC has to be strictly enforced--it's all the neoliberal prog-left has. Fox News has been cucked for a long time--and getting more so with Rupert's children assuming bigger roles.

    It's about power--the power to dictate terms.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "68 year old Bob Beckel, a vile liberal was given the boot a second time by Fox News today. He made some offhand remark to Negro co-worker that was interpreted as raciss on Tuesday, just three days ago. Talk about being hoisted on one’s own petard."

    Good. He's a lying sack of crap. He has ardently supported the forces that have made it possible to fire a man for an off-hand remark, so it is fitting he should fall to the same axe. F**k him.
    , @Mr. Anon
    It's funny that Bob Beckel trades on his reputation as some kind of political genius, when his biggest claim to fame was running Walter Mondale's campaign. Beckel was also an alcoholic and drug addict for a long time, about which he recently wrote a book.
  25. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Steve from Detroit
    Watson, 89, co-discovered the structure of DNA and has a history of racially insensitive comments.

    This man is responsible for one of the biggest scientific discoveries in the last century and it's completely neutralized by his insensitive comments. This pretty much sums up our current zeitgeist.

    They're going to force this epithet onto his tombstone, before they knock it over.

    It’s already an established belief that the key discoveries were made by Franklin and that Watson is just a plagiarist. This line will be pushed hard in future.

    Read More
  26. “Discredited” who was the authority that discredited Watson? I never get the memos

    Read More
  27. 68 year old Bob Beckel, a vile liberal was given the boot a second time by Fox News today.

    I cannot feel sorry for Beckel because he is, as you say, a vile liberal. But as more and more of these things happen to the Good Whites, perhaps they will reconsider what they have unleashed. None of them gave a damn when it was happening to the Bad Whites. Sow the wind, etc.

    On second though, Naaah.

    Read More
  28. @Alfa158
    Discredited by the hive mind, no sources needed. If the hive mind says it is discredited, disproved, junk, de-bunked, etc, then no proof is necessary.
    The Church didn't bother to disprove the heliocentric model of the solar system, they simply declared it heretical, burned Bruno at the stake and forced Galilei to recant. Both the hive mind and the Church acted that way because they could not bear the consequences to their philosophy of the heretics being right, so they simply rejected reality and substituted their own. (As the old bumper sticker says)

    It’s been some time since I thought of myself as a mathematician, but considering that her thesis adviser was Manjul Bhargava – a Fields Medal winner – I’m confident that the pure “math” of her thesis is solid.

    And I’ve no problem with the style of her thesis: Paul Halmos, one of the better mathematicians of the 20th century, wrote an insightful article on the problems that mathematicians have in speaking with laymen – his term!

    http://math.slu.edu/~srivastava/Halmos.pdf

    All that said, I think that Dr. Herron will be disappointed in the results if things really do get torn down …

    Read More
  29. @fish

    (I can’t even pretend to know how “normal” mathematicians feel when they read math, but I know it’s not how I feel.) My thesis is, in many ways, not very serious, sometimes sarcastic, brutally honest, and very me.
     
    Why should you be any different than the rapping debaters or the rapping PhD thesis submitter.

    It is my art. It is myself. It is also as mathematically complete as I could honestly make it.
     
    An honest admission at least!


    .....oh you'll go far darlin.....just probably not in math!

    Hell,she couldn’t shine the shoes of the Hidden Figures!

    Read More
  30. @Dumbo
    Wow, all this for comments made 10 years ago... Pour encourager les autres, I suppose.

    Watson’s most notable racially insensitive comments were made during a book tour in 2007, when he told the Sunday Times of London he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”…

     

    When was this "discredited"? By whom? Any sources? Is the question whether the comments were "racially insensitive" or whether they are true?

    It is outrageously scurrilous to simply assert that his views are “discredited” as if that’s an objective fact. Didn’t the “journalists” learn in school not to use the passive voice, this passage being a textbook example of why?

    Read More
  31. @YouCan'tMakeThisUp
    The female math professor who wants whites to quit

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/16659/racist-professor-tells-white-men-quit-or-be-hank-berrien

    posted her dissertation online:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PiperThesisPostPrint.pdf

    Here is a quote from it:


    (I can’t even pretend to know how “normal” mathematicians feel when they read math, but I know it’s not how I feel.) My thesis is, in many ways, not very serious, sometimes sarcastic, brutally honest, and very me.

    It is my art. It is myself. It is also as mathematically complete as I could honestly make it.


     

    She is so consumed by "diversity" that she won't discuss math:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/2015/12/why-i-do-not-talk-about-math/

    As a rule, I do not discuss math with mathematicians if I can at all avoid it. I would like to tell you why, but it’s complicated. You can never make assumptions about a marginalized person’s character based solely on behavior. Oppression creates behaviors that wouldn’t otherwise be there, and if you are not going through the same oppression, you can’t know how you would behave.

     

    “(I can’t even pretend to know how ‘normal’ mathematicians feel when they read math, but I know it’s not how I feel.) ”

    Logic is not exactly her strong suit, is it? Lucky for her the ability to think logically is apparently no longer necessary for a student of higher mathematics at an Ivy League institution.

    Read More
  32. @YouCan'tMakeThisUp
    The female math professor who wants whites to quit

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/16659/racist-professor-tells-white-men-quit-or-be-hank-berrien

    posted her dissertation online:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PiperThesisPostPrint.pdf

    Here is a quote from it:


    (I can’t even pretend to know how “normal” mathematicians feel when they read math, but I know it’s not how I feel.) My thesis is, in many ways, not very serious, sometimes sarcastic, brutally honest, and very me.

    It is my art. It is myself. It is also as mathematically complete as I could honestly make it.


     

    She is so consumed by "diversity" that she won't discuss math:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/2015/12/why-i-do-not-talk-about-math/

    As a rule, I do not discuss math with mathematicians if I can at all avoid it. I would like to tell you why, but it’s complicated. You can never make assumptions about a marginalized person’s character based solely on behavior. Oppression creates behaviors that wouldn’t otherwise be there, and if you are not going through the same oppression, you can’t know how you would behave.

     

    As a rule, I do not discuss math with mathematicians if I can at all avoid it. I would like to tell you why, but it’s complicated.

    In other words you don’t understand number theory, and you can’t do integration by parts. Join the party, pal!

    Just come out and say it lady, “math is hard”. We won’t think any less of you (well no, of course you can’t keep your job.)

    Read More
  33. @Diversity Heretic
    Universities are returning to their historic functions as the enforcers of religious orthodoxy (the High Church of Absolute Equality and Negro Veneration). Heretics such as Dr. Watson have no place in such institutions. Even their speech and writings must be ruthlessly suppressed lest they contaminate the body of the faithful.

    Martin Luther received a fairer hearing at the Diet of Worms in 1521 than people such as James Watson or Charles Murray are getting at 21st Century universities.

    Martin Luther received a fairer hearing at the Diet of Worms in 1521 than people such as James Watson or Charles Murray are getting at 21st Century universities.

    Wow,just wow! You really want to equate an ol white raciss bein told to stay outta our safe space to the torture of the great Revren DOCTOR Kang where they made him eat worms?! I caint even …..

    …. finish my chitlens.

    You tryinna marginalize my black ass, bitch?!

    Read More
  34. @YouCan'tMakeThisUp
    The female math professor who wants whites to quit

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/16659/racist-professor-tells-white-men-quit-or-be-hank-berrien

    posted her dissertation online:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PiperThesisPostPrint.pdf

    Here is a quote from it:


    (I can’t even pretend to know how “normal” mathematicians feel when they read math, but I know it’s not how I feel.) My thesis is, in many ways, not very serious, sometimes sarcastic, brutally honest, and very me.

    It is my art. It is myself. It is also as mathematically complete as I could honestly make it.


     

    She is so consumed by "diversity" that she won't discuss math:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/2015/12/why-i-do-not-talk-about-math/

    As a rule, I do not discuss math with mathematicians if I can at all avoid it. I would like to tell you why, but it’s complicated. You can never make assumptions about a marginalized person’s character based solely on behavior. Oppression creates behaviors that wouldn’t otherwise be there, and if you are not going through the same oppression, you can’t know how you would behave.

     

    I looked briefly at her dissertation: “The Equidistribution of Lattice Shapes of Rings of Integers of Cubic, Quartic, and Quintic Number Fields: an Artist’s Rendering.” I can’t make hide or hair of the math, but it seemed to me that she was attempting to inject a little humor and humanity into it.

    But then I saw this comment on a mathblog that she had been invited to write

    https://mathbabe.org/2015/12/11/piper-harron-discusses-her-artistic-and-wonderful-math-ph-d-thesis

    first, thank you for reading my post and looking at my thesis!!!!
    i have really struggled with whether and how to respond to this. The execution of this message was very nice and respectful, and I genuinely appreciate that. The premise, however, is problematic. Maybe not inherently, but within the context of the sexist society we live in. Men are allowed, and often feel compelled, to think out loud at women, to share unsolicited not necessarily informed thoughts at women. (And usually these men, unlike you, don’t even seem to recognize that their thoughts may not be useful.) Women on the other hand aren’t allowed to be as open. So, if you want to not just be respectful, but actually be anti-oppression, it is better (IMO) not to respond to a woman’s work with the types of thoughts that other men pawn off as insights, if you know what i mean. again, i appreciate your honesty, but i feel obligated to point these things out.

    And determined that she is entirely humorless if not mentally ill.

    Funny, though, she’s got room for cishet white patriarchy in her personal life:

    https://math.hawaii.edu/~rharron/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes
    Her post is actually quite funny--hilarious, even. She states that men may freely offer their comments ("think out loud at women"), but women can't reciprocate (Women...aren't allowed to be as open.").

    Maybe the world of math is different than on planet Earth--but after a generation of Grrl Power! and "You go girl!" there doesn't seem to be an off button on any female extant. Women today are non-stop in their opinions, thoughts, feelings, emotions, commentary, suggestions, about anything and everything. No need to ask--all freely offered.

    But she's got the '60s/'70s feminism script memorized.
  35. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    discredited views on race and intelligence

    When did ‘disapproved’ come to mean ‘discredited’?

    Read More
    • Replies: @lavoisier
    For some time now.

    Anything that goes against the egalitarian dogma--we are all equal--is discredited.

    Because it MUST be taken as a given, like a proof in geometry, that all races are equal.
  36. @jesse helms think-alike
    Truly insane and medieval. Rivals the persecution of Galileo.

    These thugs in academic robs should be kowtowing in homage at Watson's feet rather than ostracizing him.

    Future Chinese scholars will examine this episode in the history of the extinct Western World with wonder.

    Slightly related

    68 year old Bob Beckel, a vile liberal was given the boot a second time by Fox News today. He made some offhand remark to Negro co-worker that was interpreted as raciss on Tuesday, just three days ago. Talk about being hoisted on one's own petard.

    So this man with 50 years involvement in American politics, Mondale's '84 campaign manager, is unceremoniously shitcanned 72 hours after some trivial slip of the tongue outed him as not worthy of employment.

    What a f*cked up world we live in. Despite Trump, despite historic Repub margins in Congress, political correctness has a greater stranglehold on America than ever.

    Despite Trump, despite historic Repub margins in Congress, political correctness has a greater stranglehold on America than ever.

    Oh, the PC has to be strictly enforced–it’s all the neoliberal prog-left has. Fox News has been cucked for a long time–and getting more so with Rupert’s children assuming bigger roles.

    It’s about power–the power to dictate terms.

    Read More
  37. @new handle
    That math person at University of Hawaii - Manoa will have to lobby the state of Hawaii next to get rid of the Man in Manoa. That is similar to what those old lesbians did in the 1980s with their books marked up to write womyn or womon to over-write a word with man in it. How did that work out for them? Their flannel shirts got worn out and they got obese and impoverished, that is how it worked out for them.

    Everyone is calling her a math prof at U Hawaii, but from her personal webpage:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/

    it appears that she’s a stay-at-home mom of two while her pale, stale, male partner is the one with the tenure-track job:

    https://math.hawaii.edu/wordpress/people/rharron/

    I wonder if that’s the source of her anger.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Oh that poor guy. They'll be doing "co-written" papers, but they'll start putting her name first so she can get tenure too. Poor kids too, because it will be obvious to them she thinks she deserves better.
  38. @Percy Gryce
    I looked briefly at her dissertation: "The Equidistribution of Lattice Shapes of Rings of Integers of Cubic, Quartic, and Quintic Number Fields: an Artist’s Rendering." I can't make hide or hair of the math, but it seemed to me that she was attempting to inject a little humor and humanity into it.

    But then I saw this comment on a mathblog that she had been invited to write

    https://mathbabe.org/2015/12/11/piper-harron-discusses-her-artistic-and-wonderful-math-ph-d-thesis

    first, thank you for reading my post and looking at my thesis!!!!
    i have really struggled with whether and how to respond to this. The execution of this message was very nice and respectful, and I genuinely appreciate that. The premise, however, is problematic. Maybe not inherently, but within the context of the sexist society we live in. Men are allowed, and often feel compelled, to think out loud at women, to share unsolicited not necessarily informed thoughts at women. (And usually these men, unlike you, don’t even seem to recognize that their thoughts may not be useful.) Women on the other hand aren’t allowed to be as open. So, if you want to not just be respectful, but actually be anti-oppression, it is better (IMO) not to respond to a woman’s work with the types of thoughts that other men pawn off as insights, if you know what i mean. again, i appreciate your honesty, but i feel obligated to point these things out.
     
    And determined that she is entirely humorless if not mentally ill.

    Funny, though, she's got room for cishet white patriarchy in her personal life:

    https://math.hawaii.edu/~rharron/

    Her post is actually quite funny–hilarious, even. She states that men may freely offer their comments (“think out loud at women”), but women can’t reciprocate (Women…aren’t allowed to be as open.”).

    Maybe the world of math is different than on planet Earth–but after a generation of Grrl Power! and “You go girl!” there doesn’t seem to be an off button on any female extant. Women today are non-stop in their opinions, thoughts, feelings, emotions, commentary, suggestions, about anything and everything. No need to ask–all freely offered.

    But she’s got the ’60s/’70s feminism script memorized.

    Read More
  39. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @fitzGetty
    ... more ROBUST than insensitive ...
    and :
    Do these easily lead Illinois folk know about the deplorable wrongs done to
    the Dark Lady of DNA ?
    Get your teeth into that, ladettes .

    Fun fact: Kevin MacDonald did a post-doctoral fellowship at the University of Illinois, and Revilo P Oliver taught there for years.

    So, apparently, things have changed.

    (Incidentally, another fun fact about the city of Champaign, IL is that it seems to be where the term “polar bear hunting” originated.)

    Read More
  40. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    What I think always bothered me the most about Watson’s comments is that, if they thought about it, most of the people who got pissed off about Murray’s comments would probably agree with him.

    They’re the same people who tell you that IQ deficits are caused by things like malnourishment and poverty. So, obviously, even if those people are right, then of course people in Africa are going to have lower IQs. That’s why they need the aid in the first place, because they’re so poor and malnourished. You don’t have to believe there’s even a hint of a genetic component in order to agree with him.

    Since I really doubt that the people running Cold Harbor labratory are so tboughtless they didn’t realize that, it’s pretty obvious the problem is that he just spoke a truth he wasn’t supposed to.

    Read More
  41. @YouCan'tMakeThisUp
    The female math professor who wants whites to quit

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/16659/racist-professor-tells-white-men-quit-or-be-hank-berrien

    posted her dissertation online:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PiperThesisPostPrint.pdf

    Here is a quote from it:


    (I can’t even pretend to know how “normal” mathematicians feel when they read math, but I know it’s not how I feel.) My thesis is, in many ways, not very serious, sometimes sarcastic, brutally honest, and very me.

    It is my art. It is myself. It is also as mathematically complete as I could honestly make it.


     

    She is so consumed by "diversity" that she won't discuss math:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/2015/12/why-i-do-not-talk-about-math/

    As a rule, I do not discuss math with mathematicians if I can at all avoid it. I would like to tell you why, but it’s complicated. You can never make assumptions about a marginalized person’s character based solely on behavior. Oppression creates behaviors that wouldn’t otherwise be there, and if you are not going through the same oppression, you can’t know how you would behave.

     

    People who are not part of the academic environment have a difficult time understanding how blatant and pervasive the anti-male, anti-white, anti-conservative discrimination really is.

    Several years ago I worked at a community college. They had an opening for a history professor and they wanted to hire someone to teach African-American History. The dean’s preferred candidate was a black kid who failed out of, or withdrew from, 11 undergraduate courses at a prestigious state college before transferring to one with basically open admissions. He hadn’t yet completed an M.A.; the dean wanted him to teach college with only a Bachelor’s. (I voiced my opposition, but I was not yet tenured, so they started inventing reasons to show me the door, which they did as soon as my contract was up).

    One of our part-timers, a very liberal white woman with 20+ years of secondary teaching who had obtained a PhD in education and written a textbook wanted to apply for the job, but they wouldn’t even give her an interview (despite the fact that the department had a policy of interviewing part-timers when a full-time opening came up). Wrong skin color.

    I worked at another college where the lone black token faculty member dressed and spoke as if he were a wino on the street. He was a professor of “communications;” his standard greeting for everyone — (if he said anything at all, often he just grunted) was “‘Sup, maaaaan….”

    He was, of course, tenured.

    Read More
  42. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @jackson
    Rosalind Franklin had the structure of DNA staring her in the face and didn't even see it. Lol at her "discovering the double-helix structure."

    Rosalind Franklin had the structure of DNA staring her in the face and didn’t even see it.

    Not quite as bad as you put it but with her being a professional crystallographer and still not realizing the significance of the space group she determined – all the while a self-taught Crick did – that stings. The experimental data was still not good enough for her to get the exact structure, even if she had an insight on what C2 means in physical world. Not without realizing the significance of Chargaff’s rule, anyway. Which Watson did – and which was just about the only significant contribution he made.

    Read More
  43. @Intelligent Dasein

    This man is responsible for one of the biggest scientific discoveries in the last century...
     
    I think statements like this are rather overstating the real magnitude of the accomplishment. Was elucidating the structure of DNA really that vital and pressing a problem? Why is it ranked among the world's greatest scientific achievements? Is it due to the sheer difficulty of the problem itself or perhaps the greatness of the benefits that flowed from its resolution? It can't be. The problem was not even a particularly challenging one; and although the prospects of genetic medicine and genetic engineering have generated endless amounts of enthusiasm over the decades, their actual results have been both small and sparse.

    I suspect that the lauding of Watson and Crick and their supposedly game-changing discovery has more to do with the fact that it seemed to place the keystone into the whole Darwinian-materialist narrative that was embraced by their generation of Leftist intellectuals. This was literally their Holy Grail, as it purported to provide both the substrate on which mutations occurred and the mechanism for transmitting them from one generation to the next. Without DNA or something very much like it, the whole Darwinian edifice is in real trouble. DNA is exactly what was needed to keep the theory intact.

    But what if DNA doesn't really do that? What if the whole notion of "information transfer" in living organisms is a flawed paradigm? Then there is no Holy Grail, and Darwinism is seen for what it really is, i.e. a schema, a program of taxonomic classification deified into a theory of origins. And suddenly, the discovery of the double-helix structure of a certain biomolecule doesn't seem so worthy of adulation.

    I don't want to see anybody sacrificed to political correctness, but Watson is reaping the whirlwind he helped to sow. There is a clear historical progression from his own belief in the all-explaining power of materialist-reductionist reasoning to his attackers' belief in their invincible Narrative. The true significance of this deplatforming is that it means the Left now feels that it can dispense with Darwinism. It no longer has any use for mild-mannered atheists and progressive intellectuals in their tweed jackets and knit ties. It can simply unleash its hordes of canailles with their untrammeled intentions to plunder and destroy.

    “materialist-reductionist reasoning” has been very successful. What would you prefer?

    Read More
    • Replies: @lavoisier
    Good point.

    The discovery of the structure of DNA, and in particular how such a structure could pass on genetic information from generation to generation, is one of the most important discoveries of all time.

    It ushered in the age of molecular biology and the discoveries coming from that field have saved literally millions of lives.

    Would someone else eventually have discovered the structure. Absolutely. The field was ripe for the discovery. But it was Watson and Crick who made that discovery and history was made.

    Evolution is a reality, like it or not. And so is the reality that not all human beings are created equal--in anything, particularly in intelligence.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    “materialist-reductionist reasoning” has been very successful.
     
    Successful at what? Other than keeping "philosophers" suckling the sow's teat of taxpayer money, what has it done?

    Can you reason? Because if you think you can reason, why do you think that you can? Materialists insist that you are wrong. You don't reason, you just react. And Darwin famously doubted human capacity for reason.

    And if the materialists are right, and your reading my post makes you angry, remember that if you are right, then I have no choice in writing this. I can only react in just this way.

    But if not, you will have to swim in the Lake.
  44. @Dumbo
    Wow, all this for comments made 10 years ago... Pour encourager les autres, I suppose.

    Watson’s most notable racially insensitive comments were made during a book tour in 2007, when he told the Sunday Times of London he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”…

     

    When was this "discredited"? By whom? Any sources? Is the question whether the comments were "racially insensitive" or whether they are true?

    Repetition of lies makes them truths I believe is what they think. It’s like having to prove you are holier than thou. Did I mention that he is racist, sexist, and everything else bad? Yes, so now you don’t have to listen to him about anything.

    Read More
  45. @Dumbo
    Wow, all this for comments made 10 years ago... Pour encourager les autres, I suppose.

    Watson’s most notable racially insensitive comments were made during a book tour in 2007, when he told the Sunday Times of London he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”…

     

    When was this "discredited"? By whom? Any sources? Is the question whether the comments were "racially insensitive" or whether they are true?

    Shocked that U of Illinois has fallen this far, or maybe just a handful of hard core leftys made it happen, but the administration caved, that wouldn’t surprise me either.

    Read More
  46. @Emblematic
    "materialist-reductionist reasoning" has been very successful. What would you prefer?

    Good point.

    The discovery of the structure of DNA, and in particular how such a structure could pass on genetic information from generation to generation, is one of the most important discoveries of all time.

    It ushered in the age of molecular biology and the discoveries coming from that field have saved literally millions of lives.

    Would someone else eventually have discovered the structure. Absolutely. The field was ripe for the discovery. But it was Watson and Crick who made that discovery and history was made.

    Evolution is a reality, like it or not. And so is the reality that not all human beings are created equal–in anything, particularly in intelligence.

    Read More
  47. This article makes it obvious how corrupt institutions of higher learning have become.

    To assert that genetic differences between people will not have any influence on human behaviors such as intelligence is absurd.

    To assert that all the races of mankind have identical biological capabilities for abstract reasoning, creativity, and problem solving is absurd.

    To deny one of the greatest living scientists a platform to speak on the basis of the claim that his statements regarding differences in intelligence between human races are manifestly false is not only absurd, it is incredibly dishonest.

    Even the scientists have become comfortable with lies.

    Read More
  48. Watson has to stop apologizing for expressing his opinion that he is gloomy about the prospects for Africa.

    Unless there is a compelling reason to stop being gloomy about the prospects for Africa, aside from an increase in their ability to sail their boats to Europe, such an opinion seems perfectly reasonable. Racist for sure. But eminently reasonable.

    Read More
  49. @Steve from Detroit
    Watson, 89, co-discovered the structure of DNA and has a history of racially insensitive comments.

    This man is responsible for one of the biggest scientific discoveries in the last century and it's completely neutralized by his insensitive comments. This pretty much sums up our current zeitgeist.

    They're going to force this epithet onto his tombstone, before they knock it over.

    Watson, 89, co-discovered the structure of DNA and has a history of racially insensitive comments.

    They’re going to force this epithet onto his tombstone, before they knock it over.

    The above would actually be a pretty cool epitaph. His tombstone should be pyramid-shaped and have a wide base to discourage toppling.

    Read More
  50. @Anon
    discredited views on race and intelligence

    When did 'disapproved' come to mean 'discredited'?

    For some time now.

    Anything that goes against the egalitarian dogma–we are all equal–is discredited.

    Because it MUST be taken as a given, like a proof in geometry, that all races are equal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Because it MUST be taken as a given, like a proof in geometry, that all races are equal.
     
    No, not a proof; that'd be an axiom, something too simple to be proven from other axioms. Man, I never liked doing proofs!
  51. @Kyle a
    "Discredited" who was the authority that discredited Watson? I never get the memos

    The usual suspects discredited him.

    Read More
  52. Watson’s most notable racially insensitive comments were made during a book tour in 2007, when he told the Sunday Times of London he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”…

    The only problem with this is its unPC-ness. It’s absolutely rock-solid on the facts. That American Blacks have a mean IQ of 85 (to Yellows’ mean IQ of over 100) is not controversial among psychometricians (a good bit higher than sub-Saharan African means, btw). It’s not even controversial among educators, who are constantly harping on the Black-YellowWhite testing and achievement gaps that have persisted since gaps became a measurable thing. And it’s obvious to any fool that all of our policies are based on the “fact” that their intelligence is the same as Yellows’ Whites’, as Watson found out when he contradicted the “fact” with actual facts. And it’s no secret that Blacks are the majority of the African population.

    The problem with that paragraph is that he strung three obvious facts together.

    A is true, and B is true, and C is true, but A, B, and C cannot be stated all at once.

    This culture’s crazier than a shithouse rat.

    it never dawns on HBDers that their enemies are wrong and…

    they are too.

    SAD!

    Nothingburger.

    Read More
  53. @Pat Boyle
    This strikes me as showing progress. Until quite recently people were not heard in academia because they were Jews. A few centuries before that because they were not Church of England.

    This is simply a religious test. When I went to school we were expected to believe the Trinity. The heart of most major religions is a doctrine that makes no sense at all but must be believed by the faithful. The crazier and more contra-factual the idea, the more rabid the believers are in enforcing the boundaries of religious orthodoxy.

    Galileo believed in the images he saw in his telescope. Giordano Bruno, just a few years before, had burned for a similar preference for demonstrable facts over established dogma. So there is some hope. In a few years we may be able to speak openly about facts about the races and intelligence that no informed person today can really dispute. The guardians of the faith are slowly (very damn slowly) losing their power.

    >Galileo believed in the images he saw in his telescope. Giordano Bruno…had burned for a similar preference for demonstrable facts over established dogma.

    What is with all the bad-history Galileo references on this site recently?

    Let’s begin with your second howler: Bruno’s trial for heresy wasn’t about “preference for demonstrable facts”. Rather, his denial of dogmas such as eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ — not to mention his advocacy of reincarnation (the “demonstrable fact” of that is presumably beyond dispute to some people around here) — was more than enough to get him a death sentence. If you have evidence that his “preference for demonstrable facts” was among the charges, produce it.

    As for Galileo, his run-in with the Vatican likewise had little to do with what he “believed” about any images.

    In fact, many of Galileo’s staunchest champions and defenders were churchmen and many of his attackers were fellow scientists….The Church was also quite open to the ideas of Copernicus. Copernicus himself was aware that there were several strong objections to his model…and hesitated publishing… But he was strongly encouraged by Bishop Giese of Culm… Initial objections to [Galileo’s] telescopic observations were overturned when Jesuit astronomers …made their own telescopes and repeated his results…. by 1616 there were no less than seven competing cosmological models under discussion in scientific circles and, as some of the leading scholars of the day, churchmen were in the thick of these debates…but the science of the day tended to continue to favour geocentrism. Galileo’s position was actually in a minority amongst the scientists of the time and this was well understood by scientifically-literate churchmen.

    But wait, you say. Did not Galileo “prove” heliocentrism by way of those images he saw in his telescope?

    Alas, no such luck:

    As Galileo and all other astronomers of the time knew, there were several serious objections to heliocentrism which were, at that stage, hard to definitively dismiss. The lack of an observable stellar parallax was one and several problems involving the inertia caused by a revolving earth were another. Both were the reasons the ancient Greeks had rejected heliocentrism in the first place and neither were conclusively solved until long after Galileo’s death [the parallax issue wasn’t definitely answered until 1838].

    So while Galileo argued strongly for the Copernican model, he did not “prove” heliocentrism conclusively. He was also wrong about several key details – particularly the shape of planetary orbits (he rejected Kepler’s theory of elliptical orbits and clung to circular ones) and his idea that the tides were caused by the earth’s rotation. The idea that he proved heliocentrism is myth.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-historical-event/answer/Tim-ONeill-1

    If you’re going to speak out in favor of evidence and “demonstrable fact”, it behooves you not to litter your posts with Black Legend fabrications. Leave that to the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    Frankly, the argument regarding Galileo's not having "proved" heliocentrism is just dumb.

    In virtually any new scientific theory, there are going to be some anomalies it doesn't explain. The lack of parallax would be one such for heliocentrism.

    What's important is: which scientific theory explains the most of what we observe, and in the most parsimonious, most plausible manner?

    Obviously, Galileo, in his observations of imperfections in the standard geocentric model (e.g., the rings of Saturn, the moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus) coming down from Aristotle did much to undermine the geocentric theory. The geocentric theory, of course, was already almost absurd by Galileo's time, due to the bizarre epicycles it required merely to get some agreement between theory and actual observations of planetary movement.

    Perhaps Galileo's greatest contribution in this context was his absolutely pellucid presentation of the overall argument against geocentrism in his Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems.

    Sharpness is a powerful argument all to its own.

    , @Achmed E. Newman

    "…. by 1616 there were no less than seven competing cosmological models under discussion in scientific circles and, as some of the leading scholars of the day, churchmen were in the thick of these debates…but the science of the day tended to continue to favour geocentrism.
     
    So, is that to say that the science was not settled? When did they reach a consensus that the earth was the center of the solar system and put an end to the radical right-wing DENIALISM that was so prevalent in that era and has resurfaced even in modern times?
  54. @Intelligent Dasein

    This man is responsible for one of the biggest scientific discoveries in the last century...
     
    I think statements like this are rather overstating the real magnitude of the accomplishment. Was elucidating the structure of DNA really that vital and pressing a problem? Why is it ranked among the world's greatest scientific achievements? Is it due to the sheer difficulty of the problem itself or perhaps the greatness of the benefits that flowed from its resolution? It can't be. The problem was not even a particularly challenging one; and although the prospects of genetic medicine and genetic engineering have generated endless amounts of enthusiasm over the decades, their actual results have been both small and sparse.

    I suspect that the lauding of Watson and Crick and their supposedly game-changing discovery has more to do with the fact that it seemed to place the keystone into the whole Darwinian-materialist narrative that was embraced by their generation of Leftist intellectuals. This was literally their Holy Grail, as it purported to provide both the substrate on which mutations occurred and the mechanism for transmitting them from one generation to the next. Without DNA or something very much like it, the whole Darwinian edifice is in real trouble. DNA is exactly what was needed to keep the theory intact.

    But what if DNA doesn't really do that? What if the whole notion of "information transfer" in living organisms is a flawed paradigm? Then there is no Holy Grail, and Darwinism is seen for what it really is, i.e. a schema, a program of taxonomic classification deified into a theory of origins. And suddenly, the discovery of the double-helix structure of a certain biomolecule doesn't seem so worthy of adulation.

    I don't want to see anybody sacrificed to political correctness, but Watson is reaping the whirlwind he helped to sow. There is a clear historical progression from his own belief in the all-explaining power of materialist-reductionist reasoning to his attackers' belief in their invincible Narrative. The true significance of this deplatforming is that it means the Left now feels that it can dispense with Darwinism. It no longer has any use for mild-mannered atheists and progressive intellectuals in their tweed jackets and knit ties. It can simply unleash its hordes of canailles with their untrammeled intentions to plunder and destroy.

    Without DNA or something very much like it, the whole Darwinian edifice is in real trouble. DNA is exactly what was needed to keep the theory intact.

    But DNA is real. None of your verbalizing can make it go away, Mr. Heidegger Dasein.

    And yet it moves

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    For the video game, see And Yet It Moves.

    “Eppur si muove” redirects here. For other uses, see Eppur si muove (disambiguation).

    Portrait, attributed to Bartolomé Esteban Murillo, of Galileo Galilei gazing at the wall of his prison cell, on which are scratched the words “E pur si muove” (not legible in this image).

    “And yet it moves” or “Albeit it does move” (Italian: E pur si muove or Eppur si muove [epˈpur si ˈmwɔːve]) is a phrase attributed to the Italian mathematician, physicist and philosopher Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) in 1633 after being forced to recant his claims that the Earth moves around the immovable[1] Sun rather than the converse during the Galileo affair.[2]

    In this context, the implication of the phrase is: despite his recantation, the Church’s proclamations to the contrary, or any other conviction or doctrine of men, the Earth does, in fact, move (around the Sun, and not vice versa). As such, the phrase is used today as a sort of pithy retort implying that “it doesn’t matter what you believe; these are the facts.”

    But what if DNA doesn’t really do that? What if the whole notion of “information transfer” in living organisms is a flawed paradigm?

    And yet it moves.

    Read More
    • Agree: ic1000
    • Replies: @HA
    Portrait, attributed to Bartolomé Esteban Murillo, of Galileo Galilei gazing at the wall of his prison cell...

    Prison cell? It's actually not known whether Galileo was stationed in a prison or in the prosecutor's apartment during the 3 days or so of the trial. But afterwards, he stayed at the Villa Medici, a "sumptuous palace owned by the Grand Duke of Tuscany," and then the residence of the archbishop of Sienna (his good friend), and then his own villa near Florence.

    That's not to minimize his loss of status and freedom, but let's not pretend it was bars and chains, either.

  55. @HA
    >Galileo believed in the images he saw in his telescope. Giordano Bruno…had burned for a similar preference for demonstrable facts over established dogma.

    What is with all the bad-history Galileo references on this site recently?

    Let’s begin with your second howler: Bruno’s trial for heresy wasn't about “preference for demonstrable facts". Rather, his denial of dogmas such as eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ -- not to mention his advocacy of reincarnation (the “demonstrable fact” of that is presumably beyond dispute to some people around here) -- was more than enough to get him a death sentence. If you have evidence that his "preference for demonstrable facts" was among the charges, produce it.

    As for Galileo, his run-in with the Vatican likewise had little to do with what he “believed” about any images.


    In fact, many of Galileo's staunchest champions and defenders were churchmen and many of his attackers were fellow scientists….The Church was also quite open to the ideas of Copernicus. Copernicus himself was aware that there were several strong objections to his model...and hesitated publishing… But he was strongly encouraged by Bishop Giese of Culm… Initial objections to [Galileo’s] telescopic observations were overturned when Jesuit astronomers ...made their own telescopes and repeated his results…. by 1616 there were no less than seven competing cosmological models under discussion in scientific circles and, as some of the leading scholars of the day, churchmen were in the thick of these debates...but the science of the day tended to continue to favour geocentrism. Galileo's position was actually in a minority amongst the scientists of the time and this was well understood by scientifically-literate churchmen.
     
    But wait, you say. Did not Galileo “prove” heliocentrism by way of those images he saw in his telescope?

    Alas, no such luck:


    As Galileo and all other astronomers of the time knew, there were several serious objections to heliocentrism which were, at that stage, hard to definitively dismiss. The lack of an observable stellar parallax was one and several problems involving the inertia caused by a revolving earth were another. Both were the reasons the ancient Greeks had rejected heliocentrism in the first place and neither were conclusively solved until long after Galileo's death [the parallax issue wasn’t definitely answered until 1838].

    So while Galileo argued strongly for the Copernican model, he did not "prove" heliocentrism conclusively. He was also wrong about several key details - particularly the shape of planetary orbits (he rejected Kepler's theory of elliptical orbits and clung to circular ones) and his idea that the tides were caused by the earth's rotation. The idea that he proved heliocentrism is myth.
     

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-historical-event/answer/Tim-ONeill-1

    If you’re going to speak out in favor of evidence and "demonstrable fact", it behooves you not to litter your posts with Black Legend fabrications. Leave that to the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson.

    Frankly, the argument regarding Galileo’s not having “proved” heliocentrism is just dumb.

    In virtually any new scientific theory, there are going to be some anomalies it doesn’t explain. The lack of parallax would be one such for heliocentrism.

    What’s important is: which scientific theory explains the most of what we observe, and in the most parsimonious, most plausible manner?

    Obviously, Galileo, in his observations of imperfections in the standard geocentric model (e.g., the rings of Saturn, the moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus) coming down from Aristotle did much to undermine the geocentric theory. The geocentric theory, of course, was already almost absurd by Galileo’s time, due to the bizarre epicycles it required merely to get some agreement between theory and actual observations of planetary movement.

    Perhaps Galileo’s greatest contribution in this context was his absolutely pellucid presentation of the overall argument against geocentrism in his Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems.

    Sharpness is a powerful argument all to its own.

    Read More
    • Replies: @cthulhu

    Perhaps Galileo’s greatest contribution in this context was his absolutely pellucid presentation of the overall argument against geocentrism in his Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems.

     

    I took six hours of History of Science as part of my non-major electives in college 30+ years ago, and my professor (who was pretty cynical and not particularly politically correct) said that what really got Galileo in trouble was that some Church official (the Pope?) thought that the "buffoon" character in the dialog was modeled on him. I have no independent confirmation of that viewpoint though.
  56. What does ‘Dasein’ mean in Heidegger’s philosophy?

    Dasein is used both in Being and Time and then later in Contributions to Philosophy (from Ereignis). What is the nature of Dasein and what does it mean in the context of Heideggers philosophy as a whole?

    Prof. Ammon Allred will it all perfectly clear:

    Ammon Allred, I am a professor of philosophy.

    Updated Dec 9 · Upvoted by David Miller, I am an Interdisciplinary Humanities Ph.D. student at the University of Louisville with interests i…

    Recall that Being and Time is written to provoke a reconsideration of “The question of the meaning of being.” The German word for to be is Sein. (Most Indo-European languages use the infinitive — “to x” as the general noun — English uses the participle “x-ing.”)

    Part One of Being and Time (the only part Heidegger actually wrote, and even that was one-third unfinished) however only treated the being of the being who asks the question of the meaning of being. That sounds like a handful but the point is, he’s asking: what is it like to be the kind of entity that asks about the meaningfulness of things.

    Given that human beings are the ones who are asking this question, Heidegger says he’s going to start by asking about the meaning of the being of the human being (what it means to be human). He then says that he’ll use the word “Dasein.”

    We’ve already seen that sein means to be. Da means there. Dasein is a perfectly ordinary German word that means existence — so Heidegger is making an ordinary word into a technical word. This is why it’s left untranslated in Heidegger scholarship.

    The problem with leaving it untranslated is that being and time is replete with plays on the word, too numerous to go into.

    Now, already in Being and Time Dasein does not mean “humans” — Dasein is not a bipedal mammal with opposable thumbs that talks. Dasein is what it’s like to be human (to ask about beings and to have a “world” — Dasein’s preliminary meaning is In-der-Welt-Sein. To be in the world).

    But later, Hediegger will decide that even that is too humanistic. Dasein will come to refer to the “place” of the human being, the “there,” where human beings are. This could be understood as a particular world, but even more how meaning happens…

    https://www.quora.com/What-does-Dasein-mean-in-Heideggers-philosophy

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    All fine - might want to have a look at : Thomas Rentsch, "Heidegger und Wittgenstein".
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    Some say a man is judged by the caliber of his enemies.

    Given the thickness of the drooling, oblivious gainsayers I have attracted in this thread (Dave Davenport, Emblematic, Lavoisier), I must sadly conclude that I've amounted to jack squat.
  57. @Emblematic
    "materialist-reductionist reasoning" has been very successful. What would you prefer?

    “materialist-reductionist reasoning” has been very successful.

    Successful at what? Other than keeping “philosophers” suckling the sow’s teat of taxpayer money, what has it done?

    Can you reason? Because if you think you can reason, why do you think that you can? Materialists insist that you are wrong. You don’t reason, you just react. And Darwin famously doubted human capacity for reason.

    And if the materialists are right, and your reading my post makes you angry, remember that if you are right, then I have no choice in writing this. I can only react in just this way.

    But if not, you will have to swim in the Lake.

    Read More
  58. @Alfa158
    Discredited by the hive mind, no sources needed. If the hive mind says it is discredited, disproved, junk, de-bunked, etc, then no proof is necessary.
    The Church didn't bother to disprove the heliocentric model of the solar system, they simply declared it heretical, burned Bruno at the stake and forced Galilei to recant. Both the hive mind and the Church acted that way because they could not bear the consequences to their philosophy of the heretics being right, so they simply rejected reality and substituted their own. (As the old bumper sticker says)

    You might want to re-think some of the Galileo narrative.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-historical-event/answer/Tim-ONeill-1

    Update: I see that link has already been posted.

    Read More
  59. “What’s important is: which scientific theory explains the most of what we observe, and in the most parsimonious, most plausible manner?…Sharpness is a powerful argument all to its own.”

    Again, you’re assuming the affair was about science and parsimony. It wasn’t.

    Instead of limiting himself to actual demonstrations that his theory did all of that (which would have been nigh impossible at the time), Galileo instead chose a pithier approach, which was to characterize his benefactor as the idiotic Simplicio (i.e., simpleton).

    That, not the science, was his downfall, and shows a distinct lack of sharpness on his part. The same might be said for those who rely on twisted history to make a point.

    Read More
  60. @David Davenport
    Without DNA or something very much like it, the whole Darwinian edifice is in real trouble. DNA is exactly what was needed to keep the theory intact.

    But DNA is real. None of your verbalizing can make it go away, Mr. Heidegger Dasein.

    And yet it moves

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    For the video game, see And Yet It Moves.

    "Eppur si muove" redirects here. For other uses, see Eppur si muove (disambiguation).

    Portrait, attributed to Bartolomé Esteban Murillo, of Galileo Galilei gazing at the wall of his prison cell, on which are scratched the words "E pur si muove" (not legible in this image).

    "And yet it moves" or "Albeit it does move" (Italian: E pur si muove or Eppur si muove [epˈpur si ˈmwɔːve]) is a phrase attributed to the Italian mathematician, physicist and philosopher Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) in 1633 after being forced to recant his claims that the Earth moves around the immovable[1] Sun rather than the converse during the Galileo affair.[2]

    In this context, the implication of the phrase is: despite his recantation, the Church's proclamations to the contrary, or any other conviction or doctrine of men, the Earth does, in fact, move (around the Sun, and not vice versa). As such, the phrase is used today as a sort of pithy retort implying that "it doesn't matter what you believe; these are the facts."


    But what if DNA doesn’t really do that? What if the whole notion of “information transfer” in living organisms is a flawed paradigm?

    And yet it moves.

    Portrait, attributed to Bartolomé Esteban Murillo, of Galileo Galilei gazing at the wall of his prison cell…

    Prison cell? It’s actually not known whether Galileo was stationed in a prison or in the prosecutor’s apartment during the 3 days or so of the trial. But afterwards, he stayed at the Villa Medici, a “sumptuous palace owned by the Grand Duke of Tuscany,” and then the residence of the archbishop of Sienna (his good friend), and then his own villa near Florence.

    That’s not to minimize his loss of status and freedom, but let’s not pretend it was bars and chains, either.

    Read More
  61. @David Davenport
    What does 'Dasein' mean in Heidegger's philosophy?

    Dasein is used both in Being and Time and then later in Contributions to Philosophy (from Ereignis). What is the nature of Dasein and what does it mean in the context of Heideggers philosophy as a whole?

    Prof. Ammon Allred will it all perfectly clear:

    Ammon Allred, I am a professor of philosophy.

    Updated Dec 9 · Upvoted by David Miller, I am an Interdisciplinary Humanities Ph.D. student at the University of Louisville with interests i…

    Recall that Being and Time is written to provoke a reconsideration of "The question of the meaning of being." The German word for to be is Sein. (Most Indo-European languages use the infinitive --- "to x" as the general noun --- English uses the participle "x-ing.")

    Part One of Being and Time (the only part Heidegger actually wrote, and even that was one-third unfinished) however only treated the being of the being who asks the question of the meaning of being. That sounds like a handful but the point is, he's asking: what is it like to be the kind of entity that asks about the meaningfulness of things.

    Given that human beings are the ones who are asking this question, Heidegger says he's going to start by asking about the meaning of the being of the human being (what it means to be human). He then says that he'll use the word "Dasein."

    We've already seen that sein means to be. Da means there. Dasein is a perfectly ordinary German word that means existence --- so Heidegger is making an ordinary word into a technical word. This is why it's left untranslated in Heidegger scholarship.

    The problem with leaving it untranslated is that being and time is replete with plays on the word, too numerous to go into.

    Now, already in Being and Time Dasein does not mean "humans" --- Dasein is not a bipedal mammal with opposable thumbs that talks. Dasein is what it's like to be human (to ask about beings and to have a "world" --- Dasein's preliminary meaning is In-der-Welt-Sein. To be in the world).

    But later, Hediegger will decide that even that is too humanistic. Dasein will come to refer to the "place" of the human being, the "there," where human beings are. This could be understood as a particular world, but even more how meaning happens...

    https://www.quora.com/What-does-Dasein-mean-in-Heideggers-philosophy

    All fine – might want to have a look at : Thomas Rentsch, “Heidegger und Wittgenstein”.

    Read More
  62. @David Davenport
    What does 'Dasein' mean in Heidegger's philosophy?

    Dasein is used both in Being and Time and then later in Contributions to Philosophy (from Ereignis). What is the nature of Dasein and what does it mean in the context of Heideggers philosophy as a whole?

    Prof. Ammon Allred will it all perfectly clear:

    Ammon Allred, I am a professor of philosophy.

    Updated Dec 9 · Upvoted by David Miller, I am an Interdisciplinary Humanities Ph.D. student at the University of Louisville with interests i…

    Recall that Being and Time is written to provoke a reconsideration of "The question of the meaning of being." The German word for to be is Sein. (Most Indo-European languages use the infinitive --- "to x" as the general noun --- English uses the participle "x-ing.")

    Part One of Being and Time (the only part Heidegger actually wrote, and even that was one-third unfinished) however only treated the being of the being who asks the question of the meaning of being. That sounds like a handful but the point is, he's asking: what is it like to be the kind of entity that asks about the meaningfulness of things.

    Given that human beings are the ones who are asking this question, Heidegger says he's going to start by asking about the meaning of the being of the human being (what it means to be human). He then says that he'll use the word "Dasein."

    We've already seen that sein means to be. Da means there. Dasein is a perfectly ordinary German word that means existence --- so Heidegger is making an ordinary word into a technical word. This is why it's left untranslated in Heidegger scholarship.

    The problem with leaving it untranslated is that being and time is replete with plays on the word, too numerous to go into.

    Now, already in Being and Time Dasein does not mean "humans" --- Dasein is not a bipedal mammal with opposable thumbs that talks. Dasein is what it's like to be human (to ask about beings and to have a "world" --- Dasein's preliminary meaning is In-der-Welt-Sein. To be in the world).

    But later, Hediegger will decide that even that is too humanistic. Dasein will come to refer to the "place" of the human being, the "there," where human beings are. This could be understood as a particular world, but even more how meaning happens...

    https://www.quora.com/What-does-Dasein-mean-in-Heideggers-philosophy

    Some say a man is judged by the caliber of his enemies.

    Given the thickness of the drooling, oblivious gainsayers I have attracted in this thread (Dave Davenport, Emblematic, Lavoisier), I must sadly conclude that I’ve amounted to jack squat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David Davenport
    All fine – might want to have a look at : Thomas Rentsch, “Heidegger und Wittgenstein”.

    Dieter, I'll put that on my list of books to look into and perhaps read. Thank you.

    Smart Being-in-this-World, why don't you give us an introduction to Heidegger, in your own words?
    , @lavoisier
    Indeed you have. Conviction is not a substitute for rational argument.

    If you want to dispute the scientific validity of evolution by natural selection you will have to offer far more than your certainty that the theory is fraudulent.

  63. Watson should be placed under house arrest like Galileo until he renounces heresy!

    I F#%@ing Love Science!

    Read More
  64. @lavoisier
    For some time now.

    Anything that goes against the egalitarian dogma--we are all equal--is discredited.

    Because it MUST be taken as a given, like a proof in geometry, that all races are equal.

    Because it MUST be taken as a given, like a proof in geometry, that all races are equal.

    No, not a proof; that’d be an axiom, something too simple to be proven from other axioms. Man, I never liked doing proofs!

    Read More
  65. @HA
    >Galileo believed in the images he saw in his telescope. Giordano Bruno…had burned for a similar preference for demonstrable facts over established dogma.

    What is with all the bad-history Galileo references on this site recently?

    Let’s begin with your second howler: Bruno’s trial for heresy wasn't about “preference for demonstrable facts". Rather, his denial of dogmas such as eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ -- not to mention his advocacy of reincarnation (the “demonstrable fact” of that is presumably beyond dispute to some people around here) -- was more than enough to get him a death sentence. If you have evidence that his "preference for demonstrable facts" was among the charges, produce it.

    As for Galileo, his run-in with the Vatican likewise had little to do with what he “believed” about any images.


    In fact, many of Galileo's staunchest champions and defenders were churchmen and many of his attackers were fellow scientists….The Church was also quite open to the ideas of Copernicus. Copernicus himself was aware that there were several strong objections to his model...and hesitated publishing… But he was strongly encouraged by Bishop Giese of Culm… Initial objections to [Galileo’s] telescopic observations were overturned when Jesuit astronomers ...made their own telescopes and repeated his results…. by 1616 there were no less than seven competing cosmological models under discussion in scientific circles and, as some of the leading scholars of the day, churchmen were in the thick of these debates...but the science of the day tended to continue to favour geocentrism. Galileo's position was actually in a minority amongst the scientists of the time and this was well understood by scientifically-literate churchmen.
     
    But wait, you say. Did not Galileo “prove” heliocentrism by way of those images he saw in his telescope?

    Alas, no such luck:


    As Galileo and all other astronomers of the time knew, there were several serious objections to heliocentrism which were, at that stage, hard to definitively dismiss. The lack of an observable stellar parallax was one and several problems involving the inertia caused by a revolving earth were another. Both were the reasons the ancient Greeks had rejected heliocentrism in the first place and neither were conclusively solved until long after Galileo's death [the parallax issue wasn’t definitely answered until 1838].

    So while Galileo argued strongly for the Copernican model, he did not "prove" heliocentrism conclusively. He was also wrong about several key details - particularly the shape of planetary orbits (he rejected Kepler's theory of elliptical orbits and clung to circular ones) and his idea that the tides were caused by the earth's rotation. The idea that he proved heliocentrism is myth.
     

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-historical-event/answer/Tim-ONeill-1

    If you’re going to speak out in favor of evidence and "demonstrable fact", it behooves you not to litter your posts with Black Legend fabrications. Leave that to the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson.

    “…. by 1616 there were no less than seven competing cosmological models under discussion in scientific circles and, as some of the leading scholars of the day, churchmen were in the thick of these debates…but the science of the day tended to continue to favour geocentrism.

    So, is that to say that the science was not settled? When did they reach a consensus that the earth was the center of the solar system and put an end to the radical right-wing DENIALISM that was so prevalent in that era and has resurfaced even in modern times?

    Read More
  66. @YouCan'tMakeThisUp
    The female math professor who wants whites to quit

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/16659/racist-professor-tells-white-men-quit-or-be-hank-berrien

    posted her dissertation online:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PiperThesisPostPrint.pdf

    Here is a quote from it:


    (I can’t even pretend to know how “normal” mathematicians feel when they read math, but I know it’s not how I feel.) My thesis is, in many ways, not very serious, sometimes sarcastic, brutally honest, and very me.

    It is my art. It is myself. It is also as mathematically complete as I could honestly make it.


     

    She is so consumed by "diversity" that she won't discuss math:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/2015/12/why-i-do-not-talk-about-math/

    As a rule, I do not discuss math with mathematicians if I can at all avoid it. I would like to tell you why, but it’s complicated. You can never make assumptions about a marginalized person’s character based solely on behavior. Oppression creates behaviors that wouldn’t otherwise be there, and if you are not going through the same oppression, you can’t know how you would behave.

     

    This young woman seems To have deftly combined the most dispiriting elements of Hobbesianism and Marxism. Life is a brutal negative sum game, so take out the haves, take em out and expunge their very memory. Maybe she’s watched too much Hunger Games, or maybe not. Too much cisheteronormative white stuff there for her indelicate sensibilities. May she repent now or share eternity in the circle of hell occupied by cisheteronormative mansplainers.

    Read More
  67. @jtgw
    So oppressed that she got a PhD from an Ivy League university and a tenure-track position in a pleasant location.

    I can't judge the quality of her research, though I can judge the flippant style of her writing. Any mathematicians care to weigh in?

    Also apparently 6 years late in her thesis. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/865223680586067968

    Any bets as to how much of it was ghostwritten?

    Any bets as to how much of it was ghostwritten?

    Well, there is this from her acknowlegements:

    “Finally, I’d like to thank my husband, Robert Harron, for always being at the aforementioned underground establishment, for being a night owl, for being a number theorist, for being an informal advisor, for being an unpaid copy-editor, for increasing the amount of truth in my thesis, and all sorts of help with everything.”

    So, I’d say the chances are………..even money.

    By the way, this is the abstract from her dissertation:

    “A fascinating tale of mayhem, mystery, and mathematics. Attached to each degree n number field is a rank n−1 lattice called its shape. This thesis shows that the shapes of Sn-number fields (of degree n=3, 4, or 5) become equidistributed as the absolute discriminant of the number field goes to infinity. The result for n=3 is due to David Terr. Here, we provide a unified proof for n = 3, 4 , and 5 based on the parametrizations of low rank rings due to Bhargava and Delone-Faddeev. We do not assume any of those words make any kind of sense, though we do make certain assumptions about how much time the reader has on her hands and what kind of sense of humor she has.”

    Perhaps all those words don’t make much sense to her.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Found this discussion on /sci/:

    https://boards.4chan.org/sci/thread/8924376

    Some white knights try to defend her, but it's pretty obvious to most participants that she's a complete fraud.
  68. @jesse helms think-alike
    Truly insane and medieval. Rivals the persecution of Galileo.

    These thugs in academic robs should be kowtowing in homage at Watson's feet rather than ostracizing him.

    Future Chinese scholars will examine this episode in the history of the extinct Western World with wonder.

    Slightly related

    68 year old Bob Beckel, a vile liberal was given the boot a second time by Fox News today. He made some offhand remark to Negro co-worker that was interpreted as raciss on Tuesday, just three days ago. Talk about being hoisted on one's own petard.

    So this man with 50 years involvement in American politics, Mondale's '84 campaign manager, is unceremoniously shitcanned 72 hours after some trivial slip of the tongue outed him as not worthy of employment.

    What a f*cked up world we live in. Despite Trump, despite historic Repub margins in Congress, political correctness has a greater stranglehold on America than ever.

    “68 year old Bob Beckel, a vile liberal was given the boot a second time by Fox News today. He made some offhand remark to Negro co-worker that was interpreted as raciss on Tuesday, just three days ago. Talk about being hoisted on one’s own petard.”

    Good. He’s a lying sack of crap. He has ardently supported the forces that have made it possible to fire a man for an off-hand remark, so it is fitting he should fall to the same axe. F**k him.

    Read More
  69. The University of Illinois has cancelled plans to host a talk by Nobel Laureate James Watson after faculty raised concerns about his discredited views on race and intelligence. …

    Of course they are not discredited at all, in the customary sense of the term.

    Read More
  70. @jesse helms think-alike
    Truly insane and medieval. Rivals the persecution of Galileo.

    These thugs in academic robs should be kowtowing in homage at Watson's feet rather than ostracizing him.

    Future Chinese scholars will examine this episode in the history of the extinct Western World with wonder.

    Slightly related

    68 year old Bob Beckel, a vile liberal was given the boot a second time by Fox News today. He made some offhand remark to Negro co-worker that was interpreted as raciss on Tuesday, just three days ago. Talk about being hoisted on one's own petard.

    So this man with 50 years involvement in American politics, Mondale's '84 campaign manager, is unceremoniously shitcanned 72 hours after some trivial slip of the tongue outed him as not worthy of employment.

    What a f*cked up world we live in. Despite Trump, despite historic Repub margins in Congress, political correctness has a greater stranglehold on America than ever.

    It’s funny that Bob Beckel trades on his reputation as some kind of political genius, when his biggest claim to fame was running Walter Mondale’s campaign. Beckel was also an alcoholic and drug addict for a long time, about which he recently wrote a book.

    Read More
  71. @YouCan'tMakeThisUp
    The female math professor who wants whites to quit

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/16659/racist-professor-tells-white-men-quit-or-be-hank-berrien

    posted her dissertation online:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PiperThesisPostPrint.pdf

    Here is a quote from it:


    (I can’t even pretend to know how “normal” mathematicians feel when they read math, but I know it’s not how I feel.) My thesis is, in many ways, not very serious, sometimes sarcastic, brutally honest, and very me.

    It is my art. It is myself. It is also as mathematically complete as I could honestly make it.


     

    She is so consumed by "diversity" that she won't discuss math:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/2015/12/why-i-do-not-talk-about-math/

    As a rule, I do not discuss math with mathematicians if I can at all avoid it. I would like to tell you why, but it’s complicated. You can never make assumptions about a marginalized person’s character based solely on behavior. Oppression creates behaviors that wouldn’t otherwise be there, and if you are not going through the same oppression, you can’t know how you would behave.

     

    Thanks for the link, YCMTU. This sort of validates what I’ve said about blacks, as a group (that’s important), being drawn to the idea of authoritarian group hierarchy. She’s implying that it isn’t the general principle of racial discrimination that’s wrong, it’s racial discrimination towards blacks that’s wrong. Racial discrimination, she seems to imply, can be a useful tool in some context.

    Not too different from American blacks of today being obsessed about the enslavement of blacks in America 150 years ago, yet largely indifferent to the legal enslavement and serfdom of blacks in Africa ten years ago, or the illegal enslavement of them that continues today. Again, it seems that who is enslaving them is more important than the fact that they’re being enslaved. Could that be a reason why blacks in the 19th century were unwilling to initiate their own emancipation?

    Read More
  72. @candid_observer
    Frankly, the argument regarding Galileo's not having "proved" heliocentrism is just dumb.

    In virtually any new scientific theory, there are going to be some anomalies it doesn't explain. The lack of parallax would be one such for heliocentrism.

    What's important is: which scientific theory explains the most of what we observe, and in the most parsimonious, most plausible manner?

    Obviously, Galileo, in his observations of imperfections in the standard geocentric model (e.g., the rings of Saturn, the moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus) coming down from Aristotle did much to undermine the geocentric theory. The geocentric theory, of course, was already almost absurd by Galileo's time, due to the bizarre epicycles it required merely to get some agreement between theory and actual observations of planetary movement.

    Perhaps Galileo's greatest contribution in this context was his absolutely pellucid presentation of the overall argument against geocentrism in his Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems.

    Sharpness is a powerful argument all to its own.

    Perhaps Galileo’s greatest contribution in this context was his absolutely pellucid presentation of the overall argument against geocentrism in his Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems.

    I took six hours of History of Science as part of my non-major electives in college 30+ years ago, and my professor (who was pretty cynical and not particularly politically correct) said that what really got Galileo in trouble was that some Church official (the Pope?) thought that the “buffoon” character in the dialog was modeled on him. I have no independent confirmation of that viewpoint though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    "thought that the “buffoon” character in the dialog was modeled on him. I have no independent confirmation of that viewpoint though."

    Simpleton might be a more accurate rendering than buffoon, but close enough:


    Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, ...was an account of conversations between a Copernican scientist, Salviati, an impartial and witty scholar named Sagredo, and a ponderous Aristotelian named Simplicio, ...although Galileo states in the preface of his book that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also had the connotation of "simpleton." Although authors Langford and Stillman Drake assert that Simplicio was modeled on philosophers Lodovico delle Colombe and Cesare Cremonini, Pope Urban's demand for his own arguments to be included in the book resulted in Galileo putting them in the mouth of Simplicio....
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

    In later years, heliocentrism also became a pawn in Protestant/Catholic tensions. While Catholics were traditionally free to follow St. Augustine's view that the Bible did not need to be interpreted literally, Protestants who took the sola scriptura line (e.g. Luther) looked down on heliocentrism, so that endorsing it openly made one vulnerable to accusations of scriptural infidelity.

  73. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @YouCan'tMakeThisUp
    The female math professor who wants whites to quit

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/16659/racist-professor-tells-white-men-quit-or-be-hank-berrien

    posted her dissertation online:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PiperThesisPostPrint.pdf

    Here is a quote from it:


    (I can’t even pretend to know how “normal” mathematicians feel when they read math, but I know it’s not how I feel.) My thesis is, in many ways, not very serious, sometimes sarcastic, brutally honest, and very me.

    It is my art. It is myself. It is also as mathematically complete as I could honestly make it.


     

    She is so consumed by "diversity" that she won't discuss math:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/2015/12/why-i-do-not-talk-about-math/

    As a rule, I do not discuss math with mathematicians if I can at all avoid it. I would like to tell you why, but it’s complicated. You can never make assumptions about a marginalized person’s character based solely on behavior. Oppression creates behaviors that wouldn’t otherwise be there, and if you are not going through the same oppression, you can’t know how you would behave.

     

    If only Leibniz, Newton, Euclid, Descartes, Fermat, and hundreds of other lesser known cis white men had just stayed out of mathematics, we might already have the race neutral math that leftist academians have been pushing for these days, that everyone can do equally well because all answers are correct.

    We might not have sent a man to the moon, but hey, that was racist (it was white men), it was sexist, and it was a macroagression to the self esteem of People of Color of other countries all around the world, who didn’t make the achievement. So in other words, it was an unspeakable evil that never should have been allowed to happen anyway.

    Read More
  74. @Intelligent Dasein
    Some say a man is judged by the caliber of his enemies.

    Given the thickness of the drooling, oblivious gainsayers I have attracted in this thread (Dave Davenport, Emblematic, Lavoisier), I must sadly conclude that I've amounted to jack squat.

    All fine – might want to have a look at : Thomas Rentsch, “Heidegger und Wittgenstein”.

    Dieter, I’ll put that on my list of books to look into and perhaps read. Thank you.

    Smart Being-in-this-World, why don’t you give us an introduction to Heidegger, in your own words?

    Read More
  75. @jtgw
    So oppressed that she got a PhD from an Ivy League university and a tenure-track position in a pleasant location.

    I can't judge the quality of her research, though I can judge the flippant style of her writing. Any mathematicians care to weigh in?

    Also apparently 6 years late in her thesis. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/865223680586067968

    Any bets as to how much of it was ghostwritten?

    Any bets as to how much of it was ghostwritten?

    Very good point. The whole thing seemed flippant (“humorous”) and unserious, and the author seems very cagey about her math skills, so I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the technical parts turned out to be, ahem, sourced from somebody else. Forget it, Jake, it’s Ivy League. But how can they participate in something like this? I said forget it.

    Read More
  76. The University of Illinois has cancelled plans to host a talk by Nobel Laureate James Watson after faculty raised concerns about his discredited views on race and intelligence….

    Who discredited Dr. Watson’s views, and when? I did not get the memo, but I sincerely want to see it, because it will represent radical scientific breakthroughs regarding genetics; in fact, now that his views have been discredited, his talk probably should have been cancelled, and whoever discredited him probably should be given the invitation in his place, because that person is some kind of genius who just revolutionalsed biology…astoundingly, though, I reiterate that I’ve yet to hear anything about these revolutionary diacoveries….

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    See comment 34. Then please report to the reeducation center where you will receive your new copy of the SJW dictionary along with the required treatment (lobotomy?).
  77. @Autochthon

    The University of Illinois has cancelled plans to host a talk by Nobel Laureate James Watson after faculty raised concerns about his discredited views on race and intelligence....
     
    Who discredited Dr. Watson's views, and when? I did not get the memo, but I sincerely want to see it, because it will represent radical scientific breakthroughs regarding genetics; in fact, now that his views have been discredited, his talk probably should have been cancelled, and whoever discredited him probably should be given the invitation in his place, because that person is some kind of genius who just revolutionalsed biology...astoundingly, though, I reiterate that I've yet to hear anything about these revolutionary diacoveries....

    See comment 34. Then please report to the reeducation center where you will receive your new copy of the SJW dictionary along with the required treatment (lobotomy?).

    Read More
  78. […] Nobel Laureate’s Talk on Cancer Research Deplatformed by Science Denialists (Steve Sailer, The Unz Review) […]

    Read More
  79. @cthulhu

    Perhaps Galileo’s greatest contribution in this context was his absolutely pellucid presentation of the overall argument against geocentrism in his Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems.

     

    I took six hours of History of Science as part of my non-major electives in college 30+ years ago, and my professor (who was pretty cynical and not particularly politically correct) said that what really got Galileo in trouble was that some Church official (the Pope?) thought that the "buffoon" character in the dialog was modeled on him. I have no independent confirmation of that viewpoint though.

    “thought that the “buffoon” character in the dialog was modeled on him. I have no independent confirmation of that viewpoint though.”

    Simpleton might be a more accurate rendering than buffoon, but close enough:

    Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, …was an account of conversations between a Copernican scientist, Salviati, an impartial and witty scholar named Sagredo, and a ponderous Aristotelian named Simplicio, …although Galileo states in the preface of his book that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name “Simplicio” in Italian also had the connotation of “simpleton.” Although authors Langford and Stillman Drake assert that Simplicio was modeled on philosophers Lodovico delle Colombe and Cesare Cremonini, Pope Urban’s demand for his own arguments to be included in the book resulted in Galileo putting them in the mouth of Simplicio….

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

    In later years, heliocentrism also became a pawn in Protestant/Catholic tensions. While Catholics were traditionally free to follow St. Augustine’s view that the Bible did not need to be interpreted literally, Protestants who took the sola scriptura line (e.g. Luther) looked down on heliocentrism, so that endorsing it openly made one vulnerable to accusations of scriptural infidelity.

    Read More
  80. @Intelligent Dasein
    Some say a man is judged by the caliber of his enemies.

    Given the thickness of the drooling, oblivious gainsayers I have attracted in this thread (Dave Davenport, Emblematic, Lavoisier), I must sadly conclude that I've amounted to jack squat.

    Indeed you have. Conviction is not a substitute for rational argument.

    If you want to dispute the scientific validity of evolution by natural selection you will have to offer far more than your certainty that the theory is fraudulent.

    Read More
  81. @YouCan'tMakeThisUp
    The female math professor who wants whites to quit

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/16659/racist-professor-tells-white-men-quit-or-be-hank-berrien

    posted her dissertation online:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PiperThesisPostPrint.pdf

    Here is a quote from it:


    (I can’t even pretend to know how “normal” mathematicians feel when they read math, but I know it’s not how I feel.) My thesis is, in many ways, not very serious, sometimes sarcastic, brutally honest, and very me.

    It is my art. It is myself. It is also as mathematically complete as I could honestly make it.


     

    She is so consumed by "diversity" that she won't discuss math:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/2015/12/why-i-do-not-talk-about-math/

    As a rule, I do not discuss math with mathematicians if I can at all avoid it. I would like to tell you why, but it’s complicated. You can never make assumptions about a marginalized person’s character based solely on behavior. Oppression creates behaviors that wouldn’t otherwise be there, and if you are not going through the same oppression, you can’t know how you would behave.

     

    So what kind of math doesn’t she discuss with mathematicians? Topology? Functional Analysis? Fractals?
    ‘I can’t even pretend to know how “normal” mathematicians feel when they read math, but I know it’s not how I feel.’ — Never met a “normal” mathematician, but most of them don’t want to discuss their feelings at all. They hate that squishy stuff.

    Read More
  82. @jtgw
    So oppressed that she got a PhD from an Ivy League university and a tenure-track position in a pleasant location.

    I can't judge the quality of her research, though I can judge the flippant style of her writing. Any mathematicians care to weigh in?

    Also apparently 6 years late in her thesis. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/865223680586067968

    Any bets as to how much of it was ghostwritten?

    Don’t PhD candidates have to defend their dissertations in front of a committee? How could she answer questions about something she hadn’t written, unless they deliberately asked her soft questions in order to fill a quo–oh never mind. Silly me.

    Read More
  83. @Percy Gryce
    Everyone is calling her a math prof at U Hawaii, but from her personal webpage:

    http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/

    it appears that she's a stay-at-home mom of two while her pale, stale, male partner is the one with the tenure-track job:

    https://math.hawaii.edu/wordpress/people/rharron/

    I wonder if that's the source of her anger.

    Oh that poor guy. They’ll be doing “co-written” papers, but they’ll start putting her name first so she can get tenure too. Poor kids too, because it will be obvious to them she thinks she deserves better.

    Read More
  84. @jackson
    Rosalind Franklin had the structure of DNA staring her in the face and didn't even see it. Lol at her "discovering the double-helix structure."

    Poor Rosy never made near the fuss about Patriarchal Oppression that the SJWs who use her as a slogan are doing now. She was too busy trying to do her job.

    Read More
  85. @Mr. Anon

    Any bets as to how much of it was ghostwritten?
     
    Well, there is this from her acknowlegements:

    "Finally, I’d like to thank my husband, Robert Harron, for always being at the aforementioned underground establishment, for being a night owl, for being a number theorist, for being an informal advisor, for being an unpaid copy-editor, for increasing the amount of truth in my thesis, and all sorts of help with everything."

    So, I'd say the chances are...........even money.

    By the way, this is the abstract from her dissertation:

    "A fascinating tale of mayhem, mystery, and mathematics. Attached to each degree n number field is a rank n−1 lattice called its shape. This thesis shows that the shapes of Sn-number fields (of degree n=3, 4, or 5) become equidistributed as the absolute discriminant of the number field goes to infinity. The result for n=3 is due to David Terr. Here, we provide a unified proof for n = 3, 4 , and 5 based on the parametrizations of low rank rings due to Bhargava and Delone-Faddeev. We do not assume any of those words make any kind of sense, though we do make certain assumptions about how much time the reader has on her hands and what kind of sense of humor she has."

    Perhaps all those words don't make much sense to her.

    Found this discussion on /sci/:

    https://boards.4chan.org/sci/thread/8924376

    Some white knights try to defend her, but it’s pretty obvious to most participants that she’s a complete fraud.

    Read More

Comments are closed.

PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
While other top brass played press agents for the administration’s war, William Odom told the truth about Iraq—though few listened.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?