The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Watson Watsoned Again for Saying: "And Yet It Moves"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times:

Lab Severs Ties With James Watson, Citing ‘Unsubstantiated and Reckless’ Remarks
In a recent documentary, the geneticist doubled down on comments he made a decade ago, then apologized for, regarding race, genetics and intelligence.

By Amy Harmon
Jan. 11, 2019

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory revoked the honorary titles held by its longtime leader James D. Watson on Friday, describing as “unsubstantiated and reckless” his recent remarks about genetic differences in intelligence among racial groups.

Dr. Watson, one of the most influential scientists of the 20th century, had apologized after making similar comments to a British newspaper in 2007. At the time, he was forced to retire from his job as chancellor at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island, but he has retained his office there, as well as the titles of chancellor emeritus, Oliver R. Grace professor emeritus and honorary trustee. The graduate school of biological sciences at the research center is named for Dr. Watson, and the laboratory held a 90th birthday party for him last spring.

… In the film, Dr. Watson references a view that average I.Q. differences between blacks and whites reflect underlying genetic differences shaped by natural selection.

But leading geneticists say that even modern DNA studies are currently unable to validate such hypotheses about differences between human populations.

Paging Karl Popper: NYT science reporter needs a talking to about how science works via falsification rather than validation.

Amy Harmon is a national correspondent, covering the intersection of science and society. She has won two Pulitzer Prizes, for her series “The DNA Age”, and as part of a team for the series “How Race Is Lived in America.”

Dear Amy: Do you feel no shame?

 
Hide 230 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. MEH 0910 says:

    Amy Harmon Retweeted:

    • Replies: @Escher
    , @Bubba
  2. ic1000 says:

    Dear Steve,

    Thanks for asking. No more so than the Red Guards, as their movement was building up steam. By the way, how many Pulitzers have you won? Which Upper East Side parties do you get invited to?

  3. On the “NYT comments section watch” beat, I find… comments disabled. That generally means even the NYT knows they’re being hacks. Other recommended articles include “White Supremacists are Chugging Milk, and Why Geneticists are Alarmed.” Presumably they’ve proven lactose tolerance is a social construct.

  4. Yeah, seriously! Suppose studies do come out to “validate such hypotheses?” Will Amy argue that her vicious campaign was righteous because Watson spoke correctly but without proper validation? Surely the same can be said about environmental explanations, so where is the thorough pursuit of the sinners that extrapolate policies (actual, money-costing policies!) based on those as yet unvalidated claims?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @Okechukwu
  5. “It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living. It is clear also that thought is not free if all the arguments on one side of a controversy are perpetually presented as attractively as possible, while the arguments on the other side can only be discovered by diligent search.”

    ― Bertrand Russell, Sceptical Essays

  6. The Church shut down intellectual pursuit in Galileo’s time. Nowadays, academia shuts itself down.

    Edit/P.S.: Buzz, I saw your post, with the same time-posting signature as mine, as soon as I hit the “publish” button.


  7. Galileo Before the Holy Office
    by Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
  8. @ic1000

    Which Upper East Side parties do you get invited to?

    What’s the upper east side of the Valley? Tujunga? Mt Baldy?

    • Replies: @tr
  9. Cold Spring Harbor is a pretty nice place built right on the Long Island Sound. The Lab features extremely 1980’s postmodern buildings, but done in the best possible way. It is actually quite attractive, although it would likely be even nicer with more traditional architecture as opposed to a postmodern simulacrum of traditionalism. I imagine that Watson is deeply attached to the location.

  10. MEH 0910 says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

  11. Imagine how proud Amy Harmon is of herself right now. She is likely celebrating at this very moment and positively giddy over destroying the twilight years of a man who revolutionized science because of petty and shallow politics. A man that she views as nothing less than a demon or witch.

    • Agree: Hail, ic1000, Gordo
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @BB753
  12. MEH 0910 says:

    https://mendelspod.com/podcasts/amy-harmon-nyt-race-genetics-women-science/

    Amy Harmon of the NYT on Race & Genetics, Women in Science

    Chapters:

    00:00 “Could Somebody Please Debunk This?”

    07:38 The back story

    11:48 A new wave of educated white nationalists

    16:17 How can scientists push back?

    25:50 The anxiety of scientists

    30:55 There are high schoolers out there who need you!

    36:40 Women in science and gender harassment

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  13. Moses says:
    @Anonym

    Every single time, eh?

  14. tr says: • Website
    @Reg Cæsar

    What’s the upper east side of the Valley?

    Pacoima.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  15. I don’t get the taking back of the honorary degree part. Do they expect Dr. Watson to mail back his framed copy? I’d just tell them that it is in the attic and I can’t find it right now. It’s not like he’ll be worried that he needs it on his resume.

    I guess the next step, if he continues to be so unrepentant, is to remove his name from the sides of the buildings. The thing is, once Dr. Watson has passed on, the next time some big shot comes up with a big donation, they’ll change the names anyway, or tack another name on the end, and dilute his prestige.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    , @lavoisier
  16. … In the film, Dr. Watson references a view that average I.Q. differences between blacks and whites reflect underlying genetic differences shaped by natural selection.

    But leading geneticists say that even modern DNA studies are currently unable to validate such hypotheses about differences between human populations.

    Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Harmon talking nonsense when she refers to being unable to “validate” a “hypothesis”? A hypothesis is obviously “valid” even if it hasn’t been fully “tested” or “proven,” No?

    But in any event, as we all know, Watson’s hypothesis would be deemed fully proven if it involved a different topic. And even if it wasn’t an air tight case, since when is a scientist supposed to be un-personed merely because he has proposed a hypothesis that is not yet proven. That’s why they call it “hypothesis,” for God’s sake.

  17. Sean says:

    A journalist with their dream job has their brain infected by an extremely rare desire to write the truth, they are diagnosed with a lack of cognitive dissonance, but is too late to save them.

    Ashamed? No! Amy Harmon never claimed to be a Guardian of the Galaxy. But she understood from the begining what button not to hit. Razib was Baby Groot.

  18. dan smith says:

    What is the intersection of science and society? Some new kind of roundabout?

    • Replies: @Sean
  19. @Clifford Brown

    It looks very pretty in the fall. The town or village itself must be a nice place to visit, as Billy Joel sings about it … “oh, but you ain’t got the time to go to Cold Spring Harbor, no more ….” from Everybody Loves you Now.

    It’s an obscure album cut, but a great live version from Songs in the Attic:

  20. Escher says:
    @MEH 0910

    Didn’t know he was so old and infirm. Possibly may not even know that he is crossing these red lines.
    Ms. Harmon and the rest of the pitchfork wielding mob should really be ashamed.

  21. Alfa158 says:

    You are right you don’t validate a hypothesis, you attempt to dis-prove it by experiments or further observations and measurements. So long as it cannot be disproved or modified it stands. Scientific Method 101.

  22. @ic1000

    Which Upper East Side parties do you get invited to?

    You mean non-exclusive Park Avenue after-parties?

    Was Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony in the Kavanaugh hearing inspired in part by Metropolitan? It is kind of eerie.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
  23. @Bard of Bumperstickers

    In our time, it is becoming more and more useful to remember Galileo and what happened to him. Note how often and quickly he comes to mind to us now.

    His observations of Jupiter’s moons, and his measurements of bodies in motion mark the beginning of modern science, the application of reason to observations made with increasingly powerful instruments.

    Now James Watson has become something of a matching bookend to Galileo, on our end of 400 years of great scientific works. Watson applied reasoning to observations of the very small, and came to logical conclusions about what he saw there and in the world around him.

    As the great philosopher Yogi Berra said, “You can observe a lot by watching.”

    Today, just as 400 years ago, you can again be persecuted for describing what you see. Is this the end of science?

  24. @ic1000

    Which Upper East Side parties do you get invited to?

  25. Dear Amy: Do you feel no shame?

    Who is more shameful: The vindictive, anti-science NYT? Or Watson’s cowardly “colleagues” who gleefully throw him under the bus to advance their own standing with the MSM apparatchiks?

    It’s a tough call.

  26. Hey, Amy, you’re the Father Vincenzo Maculano da Firenzuola of our time.

    What do you mean nobody’s ever heard of Father Vincenzo Maculano da Firenzuola??? He could have you excommunicated and damned forever. A very important guy.

    He won best Chief Vatican Inquisitor for 1633! It was like the Pulitzer Prize for Inquisitors!

    Can’t believe you haven’t heard of him.

  27. Big Bill says:
    @Bard of Bumperstickers

    “The Churchshut down intellectual pursuit in Galileo’s time”.

    Read up, son. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

  28. @Escher

    Age brings a gratifying lack of regard for the opinions of fools and knaves.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
  29. Sean says:
    @dan smith

    http://sonicacts.com/portal/anthropocene-objects-art-and-politics-1

    We Have Never Been Modern (1991), which is perhaps [Latour’s] most famous book. He begins the book by talking about Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer’s famous discussion of the conflict between Boyle and HobbeBoyle is of course one of the great early modern scientists, and very much a pursuer of truth. He sets up his experiments with worthy witnesses who affirm a demonstrable truth about the use of a pump to create a vacuum. But then there is Hobbes, who not only thinks that religion needs to be monopolised by the state in order to avoid appeals to higher truths and hence the onset of civil war. More than this, Hobbes also thinks that science should not contradict the state by direct appeals to transcendent truth. The state needs to be the final authority on everything, since otherwise there is going to be a war of all against all, just as in the state of nature. Hobbes even reports Boyle to the English government because this guy Boyle is very dangerous: he thinks he’s doing experiments to tell us the truth, and we can’t have that because science will then claim a higher truth than the state. Shapin and Schaffer conclude that Hobbes was more right than Boyle, because the definition of what constitutes good science is decided by society. Therefore society trumps both science and nature

    • Replies: @harmonshoal
  30. trelane says:

    Science and the double helix vs. Marx and victim identity.

  31. Ron Unz says:

    It’s pretty typical to release *extremely* embarrassing stories late on a Friday, hoping that they’ll die over the weekend…

  32. Truth is in short supply and high demand, the price should be high. How does this model fail?

    • Replies: @scrivener3
  33. @anonymous6511

    That would explain a lot. And if that’s anti-Semitic, so be it.

  34. nsa says:

    Another Nobel recipient, Bill Shockley, refused to grovel or apologize for his racial ideas and promotion of dysgenics. Shockley was also a risk taking technical rock climber….the famous Shockley Ceiling climb up a shear cliff is named after the great man who pioneered the route. Shockley founded the semiconductor industry and what is now known as Silicon Valley. Watson backed down and recanted (cowardice). Galileo backed down and recanted (for good reason). Shockley never apologized or backed down….hard core unrepentant right to the end.

  35. newrouter says:

    Also on the yenta attack list:

    Solzhenitsyn: The Fall of a Prophet
    written by Cathy Young

    https://quillette.com/2018/12/21/solzhenitsyn-the-fall-of-a-prophet/

    you go jung grrl

  36. I’m glad he’s unpersoned. Likely he’s still interesting, and interesting unpersons who don’t graduate from the Stratuversities will be able to meet him and cross-pollinate ideas. Thank you, Dr. Watson, you’re an admirable man.

  37. @Hypnotoad666

    Because schmacism. Oops! Sorry: racism.

  38. @Neil Templeton

    Who said truth is in high demand? Try telling a junkie the truth, or a socialist.

  39. bucky says:

    Black criminality and dysfunction may be the result of genetics. It may also be the result of an evil yakub race of European sorcerers. It probably is due to culture, and culture itself is shaped by genetics. Whatever.

    The progressive left holds that the only explanation for their choices and life circumstances resulting is white evil. That is the problem.

    The only person who has ever directly pushed back against these people in a direct way is David Horowitz. He’s gone further than even Richard Spencer is willing to.

    • Replies: @istevefan
  40. Do you think she didn’t include this story in her article because it was too long or because it’s B.S.?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/amy_harmon/status/1081939083314761729

    • Replies: @Anon
  41. Andrew says:

    From whining about Steve King to severing ties with John Derbyshire and Bob Weissberg to appease the vicious left, to discussing any genetic differences among populations vis a vis I.Q. It’s all related, people. When the respectable right tries to complain about one while joining in the fun on the other they show themselves to be who they are.

  42. Is it just me, or is there a pattern here?
    The greatest scientific discovery of the second half of the twentieth century, and the two Goyim who made it (Watson and Crick) cannot have their story told without hearing that Rosalyn Franklin should get the credit. And now this with Watson.

    The greatest invention of the 20th century (the transistor), invented by three gentiles (Shockley,
    Bardeen, Brattain), and Shockley is made a leper due to his quaint ideas about eugenics and sperm banks.

    The greatest technical achievement of man (the Apollo program), and its leader, German Catholic von Braun becomes a non-person because of his World War 2 past. Also, as Mr Sailer has observed, the good old boys from the South rose to the occasion putting Apollo together, but hey, these guys can be dismissed.

    Can anyone see why these heroes of science and technology may be under such revision? (hints given above).

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
  43. @Achmed E. Newman

    Perhaps they can make it illegal to bear the name “Watson” in the future. You’ll have to change it, as you might if your name were Hitler. When they need to refer to a person in the past named Watson, it will be written as “W—–.” They’ll call it “the w–word.”

  44. JimDandy says:

    Ha ha. Amy Harmon. The naked embrace of stupidity. What an one say but “Oy Vey!”

  45. the geneticist doubled down on comments he made a decade ago, then apologized for…

    It’s quite common to apologize for making comments that you know are true. Even in the current instance, Watson expressed appropriate regret that the facts don’t support the notion of equal intelligence between whites and blacks.

  46. Anonymous[283] • Disclaimer says:
    @Clifford Brown

    Imagine how proud Amy Harmon is of herself right now. She is likely celebrating at this very moment and positively giddy over destroying the twilight years of a man who revolutionized science because of petty and shallow politics. A man that she views as nothing less than a demon or witch.

    Harmon is driven by racial envy.

  47. J.Ross says: • Website

    There has not been any meaningful pushback against this behavior.

    • Replies: @Joseph Doaks
  48. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Achmed E. Newman

    The really sad thing is that the witch hunt against Watson is not only being led by know nothing journalists like Amy Harmon.

    Many scientists, who know better, have picked up the pitchforks and the torches.

    Where is the shame among these charlatans?

  49. istevefan says:
    @Escher

    A few years back an aging Strom Thurmond had a birthday party. To make the old guy feel good, Senate majority leader Trent Lott wished him a happy birthday and said we should have voted for Strom to be president, a reference to Strom’s run as a Dixiecrat years before. Clearly it was said to comfort the aging Thurmond. But Lott lost his job as majority leader because of it.

    • Replies: @Cloudswrest
    , @reactionry
  50. istevefan says:
    @Clifford Brown

    How did they get that weird effect in your photo? It almost looks as though I am looking at a diorama built by an expert modeler.

    • Replies: @Anon
  51. If things continue in this direction, people like Dr. Watson will be burned at the stake.

  52. istevefan says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    In our time, it is becoming more and more useful to remember Galileo and what happened to him. Note how often and quickly he comes to mind to us now.

    Galileo is often brought up by the left because it involves Christians going after a scientist, and thus reinforces the point the left likes to make that Christians are anti-science. Now I won’t bore you with a list of great scientists who were Christians to disprove their point. I am only interested in pointing out that by using Galileo you reinforce their meme. It is similar to people bringing up the “Salem Witch Trials”. It reinforces the intolerance meme of Christians.

    Instead of Galileo why don’t we refer to Antoine Lavoisier, the father of chemistry, who was beheaded by the progs of the French Revolution?

    “It took them only an instant to cut off this head, and one hundred years might not suffice to reproduce its like.”

    Instead of referring to the Salem Witch Trials, why not refer to the Drownings at Nantes? Progressives are second to none when it comes to being anti-science and intolerant. And Watson’s harsh treatment is being carried out by modern progs, not Christians.

    • Replies: @Cloudswrest
    , @Buzz Mohawk
  53. Anon[366] • Disclaimer says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    Yeah, it sounded like BS to me too. A little too pat, a completely un-self aware, guileless, ingenuous racist who has no problem showing it in front of passersby. “He kept repeating in s shocked manner, ‘I thought you were white,’ with others in the vicinity overhearing.” Give me a break. Names of the others? Amy just doesn’t seem able to ask followup questions. And who’s going to be so isolated as to be completely gobsmacked that black academics exist in STEM?

  54. Anon[366] • Disclaimer says:

    The Washington Post article at least paints Watson in human terms, quoting his son and reminding us of his medical situation.

    Watson’s son Rufus said Friday in a telephone interview that his father, who’s 90, was in a nursing home following an October car crash, and that his awareness of his surroundings is “very minimal.”

    “My dad’s statements might make him out to be a bigot and discriminatory,” he said, but that’s not true. “They just represent his rather narrow interpretation of genetic destiny.”

    “My dad had made the lab his life, and yet now the lab considers him a liability,” he said.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/lab-revokes-honors-for-controversial-dna-scientist-watson/2019/01/11/62980bd4-15ed-11e9-ab79-30cd4f7926f2_story.html

    • Replies: @BigDickNick
  55. istevefan says:
    @bucky

    The only person who has ever directly pushed back against these people in a direct way is David Horowitz.

    I disagree. Lawrence Auster wrote about black criminality and came out with a report in 2007 in which he cited FBI crime stats on interracial rape. David Horowitz himself fired Mr. Auster from Frontpage Magazine because he felt Auster had crossed the line. When it came to pushing back, Horowitz had nothing on Auster.

  56. Anon[366] • Disclaimer says:

    I somehow get the feeling that someone at the New York Times is pushing back a bit on Amy. If you remember, she described how she had trouble getting the initial piece on the milk chuggers and the black student published as it went back and forth between her and her editor. And the prior Watson piece seemed pretty lame in the way it phrased, with excessive, qualifications, the expert’s muted takedown of Watson’s views. And in this new piece:

    But leading geneticists say that even modern DNA studies are currently unable to validate such hypotheses about differences between human populations.

    “Currently unable to validate” Watson’s views? That’s the strongest she could get, and even that nobody would put his name on?

    I’m thinking that her editor keeps pushing her to get an on-the-record categorical denial of Watson’s statements, and she is having trouble doing it. And scientists want to keep clear of her, what with her remarkable tendency to be in the vicinity when careers are ruined.

    All this reminds me of the wishy-washy title of the Vox.com piece on Murray: “There’s still no good reason to believe black-white IQ differences are due to genes.” Still means “not yet,” “good” means there may be so-so reasons to believe, “black and white IQ differences” explicitly assumes their existence, and “due to genes” implies 100 percent because there is no qualifier like “partially.”

    https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/15/15797120/race-black-white-iq-response-critics

  57. @istevefan

    As I recall, Auster had a reader and commenter who called himself “Undercover Black Man” (UBM). He obviously admired Auster, even doing some genealogical research on his background that Auster appreciated. But UBM’s fixation with Auster was apparently of the love-hate type, as shortly afterward he compiled some of Auster’s more race-realist pronouncements and forwarded them to Horowitz with the usual “is this the sort of person you want to be associated with?” cover letter. Horowitz caved and cut Auster loose, much to the latter’s distress. Auster eked out a marginal existence and the loss of a paying outlet was very damaging to him. I donated annually and used to correspond with him privately. One time he wrote me asking if I could loan him $200, as he could not afford the train fare to a meeting he was scheduled to attend. I did so, but it really saddened me to consider how straitened were his circumstances.

  58. @Clifford Brown

    Cold Springs Harbor Lab has 1980s buildings because Watson took over as its boss about 50 years ago and raised a lot of money.

  59. newrouter says:
    @istevefan

    “David Horowitz himself fired Mr. Auster from Frontpage Magazine because he felt Auster had crossed the line”

    Ask Diana West?

    Diana West Invents a New Conspiracy
    Instead of a rebuttal she launches an attack.
    September 8, 2013
    David Horowitz

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/203390/diana-west-invents-new-conspiracy-david-horowitz

    • Replies: @newrouter
  60. Anon[366] • Disclaimer says:
    @istevefan

    How did they get that weird effect in your photo? It almost looks as though I am looking at a diorama built by an expert modeler.

    Tilt-shift photography. See some examples here:

    https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/11/beautiful-examples-of-tilt-shift-photography/

    A shift lens is used to photograph tall buildings so that the entire facade is in focus. A tilt lens is used to bend the plane of focus to fall flat on the film plane when the plane you want in focus is not parallel to the film plane. This is also use a lot in archetectural photography.

    There are regular camer lenses from Canon that can shift. For tilt you need to use a 4×5 bellows camera, I think.

    These diorama style shots are a “misuse” of the lenses to obtain a weird effect, and they came in to fashion a few years ago just as photographers were getting tired of high dynamic range photography, another gimmicky technique.

    With a long lens the entire shore should have been in focus, but by using tilt-shift to tilt the plane of focus, the backgroun buildings are thrown out of focus. This got so popular at one point that people were faking it in Photoshop with the blur filter and alpha channels.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    , @jim jones
  61. @Buzz Mohawk

    In our time, it is becoming more and more useful to remember Galileo and what happened to him.

    Nothing happened to Galileo except that he became a house guest in the palace of the Pope whom he wantonly insulted. Really, this whole “the Church tried to stifle scientific curiosity and persecuted Galileo” thing is one of the most baseless canards ever repeated. In the name of truth and honesty, it has to stop.

    And so, furthermore, does the constant lionization of genetics and geneticists that one reads in these quarters. For the iSteve contingent, genetics isn’t merely science, it’s “Science!”, the sine quo non of all human accomplishment. But in reality it isn’t even science with the small “s” ; it’s more of a spergy exercise in measuring for measurement’s sake, and there is something offbeat in the emphasis its devotees place upon it. It is genetics itself—and not the indignant scribblings of Amy Harmon—that is the end of science, the end of theoria, the end of the contemplation of a sublime and sovereign Nature that cares nothing for sociological problems. It is the decrescendo of form-filled, symbolic thought into a statistical numerology of the incidental; and something analogous to it, centuries ago, must have underlain the development of Chinese medicine and Kabbalistic divination. This is what remains after genuine science has faded out; and as the last century of relativity and indeterminacy teaches us, the West is already well advanced along this path of senility.

  62. Mr.Brown says:
    @anonymous6511

    It would be a fair assumption, but is there any evidence for it?

    There’s a list of prominent people named Harmon, and I don’t think that any of them are Jewish.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmon_(name)

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @Hail
  63. newrouter says:
    @newrouter

    “Who gave National Review the power to excommunicate? ”

    https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2019/01/who-gave-national-review-power-to.html

    ask J. Derbyshirer, M. Steyn, A. Coulter et al?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  64. @Clifford Brown

    Was Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony in the Kavanaugh hearing inspired in part by Metropolitan? It is kind of eerie.

    Brett Kavanaugh dodged a bullet during confirmation. (#1)

    How does he keep getting away with it ??? (#102)

  65. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Mr.Brown

    It was established in a previous thread, observe the eyes in the pic upthread, black like a doll’s eyes, and also Luke Ford says she’s Jewish.
    >there are Harmons who aren’t Jewish
    Okay. Some are.
    >is there any evidence
    She devoted a whole article of her own to celebrating her scientifically verified Chosen ancestry.

  66. istevefan says:
    @Harry Baldwin

    One time he wrote me asking if I could loan him $200,

    I never knew he was that down on his luck. Had he decided to toe the party line, he could have been a big time contributor to some neocon rag. The guy was smart and could write well. But he stuck to his guns and ended up almost destitute.

  67. istevefan says:
    @Anon

    Tilt-shift photography.

    Thanks.

  68. Mr. Anon says:
    @Joe, Averaged

    Yeah, seriously! Suppose studies do come out to “validate such hypotheses?” Will Amy argue that her vicious campaign was righteous because Watson spoke correctly but without proper validation?

    Indeed; it would only prove that Watson was a PAN – Premature Anti-Nurturist.

  69. Anonymous[411] • Disclaimer says:

    Shabbos culture must be ended. Leave the Tribe alone and focus on the shabbosing that goes on. Tribe power depends on goys doing the shabbosing.

    That Laboratory is run by shabbos mind slaves. If the lab leadership dismissed these incidents as trivia then the transmission of Tribe power thru the shabbos mechanism would be broken.

    Muslims for all their faults lead the way in this aspect of dealing with the Tribe.

  70. @Bard of Bumperstickers

    People actually believing this shit lol.

  71. Mr. Anon says:
    @Harry Baldwin

    Lawrence Auster was a good man. He may have been a difficult man, perhaps even sometimes an upleasant man. But fundamentally, I think, he was a good man.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
  72. Mr. Anon says:
    @newrouter

    “Who gave National Review the power to excommunicate? ”

    https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2019/01/who-gave-national-review-power-to.html

    ask J. Derbyshirer, M. Steyn, A. Coulter et al?

    And Steve Sailer too.

  73. @J.Ross

    “Y’know, the thing about a Harman, she’s got lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll’s eyes. When she comes after ya, she doesn’t seem to be livin until she bites ya…”

  74. @tr

    What’s the upper east side of the Valley?

    Pacoima.

    Nice reviews from ten years ago:

    http://www.city-data.com/forum/los-angeles/349391-what-about-pacoima.html

    Any gentrificación in the meantime?

    Woman killed in Pacoima hit-and-run, suspect vehicle is red Toyota Prius

    Must be. Priuses aren’t barrio. Not even the low-riders.

  75. Yeah, right. Galileo. I’d compare him to Ed Slott. As long as you are making absurd comparisons. And anyway, he stole his “science.” And Galileo was not suppressed because he said “it moves.” He was suppressed because he was wrong. He said that the universe is one big math problem. And it isn’t. And medieval philosophers knew this. And told him he was wrong. Because he was. Do a little study in the history of science.

  76. @Intelligent Dasein

    Wow. A smart guy on here. It’s like a miracle. You get ’em, Heidi.

  77. @Mr. Anon

    A good man and, I believe, a great one. He is missed.

    • Agree: TTSSYF, Dan Hayes
  78. Fun fact:

    In Japan, many people think the letter W is named “double” instead of “double-u”. As a result, the letter W is often used in advertising and sales to refer to double-something. For example, a cheeseburger with 2 patties and 2 slices of cheese might be called a W-cheeseburger (a “double cheeseburger”).

    As a result, in Japan, we can say Watson got W-ワトソンッド, or W-Watsoned!

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  79. Slightly OT, re Taleb-IQ controversy:

    The kind of response I was hoping would come from Unz Review:

    https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/01/08/nassim-taleb-on-iq/

  80. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Chrisnonymous


    They already had a quite sensible sigil (no+ma, above) meaning “the same kanji you just read, one more time.” Indonesians, who often double words (beri-beri) will abbreviate the second iteration with the number 2.
    Tragically, none of this made it through to the producers of the VVitch.

  81. @istevefan

    Horowitz has mulatto granddaughters he’s quite attached to. That can, well, color his views.

  82. DFH says:

    But leading geneticists say that even modern DNA studies are currently unable to validate such hypotheses about differences between human populations.

    Has the height difference between pgymies and others ever been validated by DNA studies?

  83. @Anonym

    Amy Harmon is a national correspondent, covering the intersection of science and society.

    She should cover the intersection of Laverne and Shirley known as her face.

  84. BB753 says:
    @Clifford Brown

    In her twisted mind, she’s exacting Rosalind Franklin’s revenge. Because feminism and tribal affiliation.

  85. haddox says:
    @anonymous6511

    Well, the CSHL guy she quotes for the final double-tap in this ritual character assassination is certainly Jewish.

    “It is not news when a ninety year old man who has lost cognitive inhibition, and has drifted that way for decades as he aged, speaks from his present mind,” Dr. Wigler wrote in an email. “It is not a moment for reflection. It is merely a peek into a corner of this nation’s subconscious, and a strong whiff of its not-well-shrouded past secrets.”

    And to answer Steve’s question, they have no shame. Absolutely none.

  86. El Dato says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Don’t fall off your chair writing shitty poetry.

    that cares nothing for sociological problems

    Sociology is the last refuge of the feeble mind and the abode of pop-science books.

    and as the last century of relativity and indeterminacy teaches us, the West is already well advanced along this path of senility.

    “I don’t understand it, so it must be morally bad”.

    Even though my GPS miraculously works. And the Chinese are somehow also using these principles.

    You, sir, are Bernhard Rust being a nobody on the Interwebs.

    Hilbert’s response to a question of Bernhard Rust, the Nazi Reich Minister for Science, Education, and Popular Culture, was typical. At a banquet in 1934 in Göttingen, Rust asked: “Is it really true, Mr. Professor, that your institute suffered so much from the departure of the Jews and their friends?” to which Hilbert replied, in his characteristic East Prussian dialect: “Suffered? No, it hasn’t suffered, Mr. Minister. It simply doesn’t exist anymore!”

  87. El Dato says:

    Cat races don’t exist!

    ‘It’s not your sweet pussycat!’ Ukrainian tennis star bitten by pet wild cat

    Ukrainian tennis ace Alexandr Dolgopolov has learned firsthand what it feels like to get attacked by a predator after his serval cat mercilessly sank its teeth into the player’s leg.

    The former world number 13 shared a photo on his Instagram page showing four bite marks on his leg left by the sharp teeth of his pet.

    “Still want a serval?” Dolgopolov captioned the picture. “First make sure you can manage it. This cat requires RESPECT, it’s not your sweet home pussy cat! Teeth look to be nice and straight. Went in perfectly.”

    Commenting on his Instagram post, the tennis player stressed that generally, his pet is quite calm and nice, but “demands” respect from his owner.

    Can anybody debunk this? How can scientists push back against such misinformation?

  88. Hail says: • Website
    @Mr.Brown

    is there any evidence for it?

    Yes.

    Amy Harmon, mini bio (comment-20); see also follow-up in comment-128.

    Take your Jewish identity and hold it firm, Amy, but why lead a highbrow pitchfork mob against us White Christians all the time? Give us a break.

    Winning the Pulitzer prize, 2008:

    • Replies: @tyrone
    , @Lucas McCrudy
  89. @Escher

    Escher writes:

    Didn’t know he was so old and infirm. Possibly may not even know that he is crossing these red lines.

    No, watch the documentary — it’s quite good, actually.

    Watson makes very clear that he wishes the initial story had not come out as it did and that he might have used different phrasing had he known that what he said would be published.

    But this time… no, he says what he clearly intends to say. He means it.

    Strangely, he makes very clear that he really hopes he is proven wrong (wouldn’t it be great if some simple solution would bring sub-Saharan African IQ up to 100?), but that he doubts that will happen. He comes across as a guy who actually cares more for black people than the average white guy does, certainly the average white academic. He comes across as a true liberal, a true humanitarian.

    Of course that does him no good. The saddest thing about the documentary is that they could not find a single colleague to defend Jim Watson’s right to express his scientific opinion. After watching the show with my wife, I mentioned to her that if they had asked me to defend Watson (silly, of course, since I am a physicist, not a biologist), I too would have had qualms, not because I would fear for my career (I’m too old for that), but rather because I would be afraid of a bullet or Molotov cocktail through our living-room window.

    After WW II, Milton Mayer wrote a book based on interviews with a number of Germans, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45. I’m afraid the same could be said of the USA in 2019.

    Watson does say as a parting shot that he will be even more famous in future years than he is today: I hope I have that much courage and presence of mind when I turn ninety!

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  90. @Intelligent Dasein

    Intelligent Dasein wrote:

    And so, furthermore, does the constant lionization of genetics and geneticists that one reads in these quarters. For the iSteve contingent, genetics isn’t merely science, it’s “Science!”, the sine quo non of all human accomplishment. But in reality it isn’t even science with the small “s” ; it’s more of a spergy exercise in measuring for measurement’s sake, and there is something offbeat in the emphasis its devotees place upon it. It is genetics itself—and not the indignant scribblings of Amy Harmon—that is the end of science, the end of theoria, the end of the contemplation of a sublime and sovereign Nature that cares nothing for sociological problems.

    You’re embarrassing yourself. Really embarrassing yourself.

    As a physicist, I am sympathetic to Lord Kelvin’s claim that all of science is either physics or stamp-collecting. But I have to admit that the work on DNA, in which Watson and Crick were the pioneers, is the most important development in science since 1950.

    James Watson is the most important scientist alive today — I challenge anyone to name his better (among living scientists).

    ID also wrote:

    This is what remains after genuine science has faded out; and as the last century of relativity and indeterminacy teaches us, the West is already well advanced along this path of senility.

    Einstein preferred the name “theory of invariants” to “theory of relativity”: relativity theory has nothing to do with relativism in the humanities and social sciences. Only ignoramuses think otherwise.

    And, yes, re “indeterminacy”: there are real problems in quantum mechanics, but a large number of us physicists are keenly aware of that. See the book just published last year by astrophysicist Adam Becker, What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics.

    Figuring out what is really going on in the quantum realm is hard, really, really hard. So far, it has stumped people as smart as Einstein and Schrödinger, not to mention lesser lights such as myself (I myself have done research in the area, though of course, like everyone else, I have, thus far, failed to figure out how to fully understand the quantum realm).

    Might I suggest that when you are bizarrely ignorant of some subject, you refrain from commenting on it and thereby making your ignorance manifest to the entire world?

    • Agree: ic1000
  91. Pericles says:
    @Harry Baldwin

    All in all, it’s better not to take the shekel of the Jew.

  92. @Live Free or McRib

    Galileo thought comets were optical illusions.

  93. Just 2-3 random observations.

    1.Watson’s & Crick’s discovery is one of the 5-10 most important in human history. No point in debating this.

    2. Both these guys were, basically, gifted & lucky. They are not geniuses in the ordinary sense & not remotely close to almost superhuman gifts of someone like Euler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler ) or Thomas Young ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Young_(scientist) ).
    Frequently, epochal discoveries are made by smart people (Copernicus, Darwin, Watson) who are intellectually, creatively & imaginatively very gifted, but infinitely remote from genius label.

    3. although they shot themselves in the foot, the Church was scientifically right to discipline Galileo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Historiography or:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend#Nature_of_scientific_method

    Feyerabend commented on the Galileo affair as follows:

    The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism.

    4. natural scientists tend to be opportunists. See Orwell’s essay on literature & science:
    http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/science/english/e_scien

    It is often loosely said that ‘Science is international’, but in practice the scientific workers of all countries line up behind their own governments with fewer scruples than are felt by the writers and the artists. The German scientific community, as a whole, made no resistance to Hitler. Hitler may have ruined the long-term prospects of German science, but there were still plenty of gifted men to do the necessary research on such things as synthetic oil, jet planes, rocket projectiles and the atomic bomb. Without them the German war machine could never have been built up.

    On the other hand, what happened to German literature when the Nazis came to power? I believe no exhaustive lists have been published, but I imagine that the number of German scientists — Jews apart — who voluntarily exiled themselves or were persecuted by the règime was much smaller than the number of writers and journalists. More sinister than this, a number of German scientists swallowed the monstrosity of ‘racial science’. You can find some of the statements to which they set their names in Professor Brady’s The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  94. Pericles says:

    Read This: DNA Reporter Goes on INSANE Rant against Venerable Discoverer of DNA.

  95. @Ghost of Bull Moose

    Calling a Jewish womyn Catholic? ANTI-SEMITE!

  96. Pericles says:

    Ungrateful DNA Lab Stabs Founder and Venerable Discoverer of DNA in Back.
    – “We are not willing to refund all the grants nor renounce the prestige that Watson handed us during his allegedly long and successful tenure as lab head,” anonymous spokesperson clarifies.

  97. IHTG says:
    @Harry Baldwin

    IIRC, the UBM was David Mills, a screenwriter for The Wire who died in 2010.

  98. tyrone says:
    @ic1000

    Swanky cock-tail party invites : a rod of correction …no caviar and toast points for James and Steve!

  99. tyrone says:
    @Hail

    CRIKEY! he has his left hand on her ass …..and she’s dig’n it …the other dude looks away in unbelief!……conclusion? she’s a dirt squirrel.

  100. Altai says:

    I think a better way to frame this would be to ask:
    Are we really arguing over if it’s true? Because regardless of if it is true or not, it’d cause the same amount of offence to roughly the same people.

  101. @Hypnotoad666

    People use the word “valid” incorrectly all the time. Speaking precisely, valid refers to the internal coherency of an argument. Substantiated would be a better word for what she’s trying to get across. A true argument must be both valid and make a statement which corresponds to something that’s really going on in the world somewhere. An argument can be valid yet untrue. The form the argument takes may be internally coherent but the substance be demonstrably false.

    Here’s a valid argument: (> meaning “larger than”)

    If A > B, and B > C then A > C. Note, it is contentless. The Form itself is internally consistent and the argument is therefore valid.

    Here’s an argument that is both valid and true (using the conventional size of supermarket produce)

    A Watermelon > Orange, and Orange > Grape, then Watermelon > Grape.

    and one that is valid but untrue:

    A Grape > Watermelon, Watermelon > Orange, then Grape > Orange.

    and one that is neither:

    A Grape > Orange, Orange > Watermelon then Watermelon > Grape.

    Logic is the algebra of words.

    Also, to “validate” means something completely different to a SJW than it means to the rest of the human race. For them it means to “agree with me”, to “support me psychologically and back me up irrespective of what nonsense I spew”.

  102. @Big Bill

    I wrote that human-constructed and -maintained institutions generally have sought power and self-preservation via any means, including torture and murder, at the expense of humanity. Academia – a guild – and established churches and the state, most of all, have taken turns oppressing. Bone up on your reading comprehension, Dad, and try to be less emotional. Ad-hominem is hardly a sign of maturity and wisdom. “I’m in my extremely late forties” as Garrison Keillor quipped – in his late fifties. Me too. Hope that’s old enough to play here with y’all. YOU “read up” (or just, “read”) . . . son. H. L. Mencken quipped that as he aged he believed less and less in the thought that age brings wisdom. Thinking does. Critical thinking. And reading – lots of reading. In fact, it’s never really enough. A mind is a terrible thing to reat on when it thinks it’s full. Enjoy your further reading. Dad.

  103. @MEH 0910

    Is there a transcript?

    Btw, anyone know these days if there’s an online equivalent of Carleton Coon’s “The Living Races Of Man” anywhere? When Steve opined that Ethiopians tend to be short I wanted to look up average height for the different groups (Amhara, Oromo etc) but there’s little except discussion sites like this (the writer is six-three).

    I have visited Addis Abeba about two years ago, man did I feel like a giant between those Dwarf Aethiopids (all their men are around 5’4). While I don’t face this kind of shock when I visit Somaliland or Puntland where I am still above average but only by a small margin.

    This can’t be solely caused by dietary differences something genetic must also play a part in this. Perhaps Somalis are the descendants of a group of tall Cushites that split off from their dwarf-like cousins who stayed behind in the Ethiopian highlands?

    Fifty years ago every goodthinking household had hefty hardback books with titles like “Peoples Of The World” for their kids to read. Now such information – even about physical differences – is rapidly vanishing.

    • Replies: @Hail
  104. Jay James says:

    Have any scientists considered writing a rebuttal and seeing if the Times will publish it? It’s not exactly a career builder, but there are people who in public acknowledge that groups differences in IQ likely have a genetic basis, such as Richard Haier, Greg Cochrane and Charles Murray.

  105. Jay James says:

    One thing I’ve noticed about Harmon is that she always frames the issue in terms of “genetics” or “geneticists.” So if she were to ever admit that there are experts who believe IQ gaps have a genetic component, well then they (Murray, Haier, Cochrane) aren’t “geneticists.”

  106. Anon[318] • Disclaimer says:

    Taleb-Tubby

  107. @J.Ross

    Unfortunately. Maybe it’s because the Left has staked out a monopoly on “feelings.”

    I don’t know, but I suspect many of us are starting to feel pretty angry that this sort of thing just goes on and on, but we aren’t allowed to express that — people on the Right who express feelings get sent to Re-education Camp!

  108. @PhysicistDave

    You’re embarrassing yourself. Really embarrassing yourself.

    Is that really your first resort?

    Might I suggest that when you are bizarrely ignorant of some subject, you refrain from commenting on it and thereby making your ignorance manifest to the entire world?

    And your last resort?

    I believe the Platonic form of this entire response of yours is “Wow. Just wow.” The problem here is that I know what I’m talking about, and I know what you’re talking about, but you don’t know what I’m talking about. Something must have touched a nerve, however. Otherwise you would not have been actuated into this kind of imperious reply.

  109. @istevefan

    I think it would be more accurate to say that Lott lost his job as majority leader because he groveled afterward.

  110. @Hail

    Anyone want to guess who probably worked harder to get Watson “Watsoned” the first time back in 2007?
    -Steven Rose, an influential thinker in the “radical science movement” -so no pre-conceived political biases here, just a cold, hard, sober analysis of the facts as they are!

    • Replies: @Hail
  111. @istevefan

    Lavoisier wasn’t beheaded because of his scientific views/discoveries. He was beheaded because he was a class enemy (aristocrat).

    • Replies: @bomag
  112. TWS says:
    @Anonym

    Come the revolution nobody will find her more attractive.

    • Replies: @JimS
  113. Jack D says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Well, until recently Hawking might have been in the running.

    The whole point of making Watson an un-person is BECAUSE of and not despite his greatness. First of all, having Watson’s head mounted on her wall (even if he was old and feeble when she bagged him) is a very big trophy for a nobody like Harmon. 2nd, this shows everyone below Watson that no one is immune – making the most important scientific discovery of the past 70 years does not protect you, so someone who is a mere grad student or whatever (and there are a lot more of those then there are of super-eminent scientists) should REALLY keep his mouth shut, capiche?

    What is really sad about this is not that there are bullies who enjoy trampling an old man but that everyone else is too cowed and afraid to defend him publicly. The same thing happened in Stalinist Russia, in Nazi Germany, etc. but I never thought that we’d see that kind of terror in the US.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  114. @ic1000

    Which Upper East Side parties do you get invited to?

    Radical Chic: That Party at Lenny’s
    By Tom Wolfe
    From the June 8, 1970 issue of New York Magazine.

    http://nymag.com/news/features/46170/

    (Also pertinent to the Leonard Bernstein article from a couple days ago.)

  115. Jack D says:
    @J.Ross

    eyes in the pic upthread, black like a doll’s eyes

    I’ve read Der Giftpilz and it doesn’t mention black eyes as a “tell” for Jews. My sister has green eyes – does that mean that she’s not Jewish?

    Anne Hathaway has dark eyes – is she Jewish?

    Harmon is Jewish but the obsession with Joos around here is out of hand. If Harmon didn’t write this article there are plenty of righteous leftist WASP women who would have loved to written it and coming up behind them there are millions upon millions of Latinos, Asians, etc. who would all like their own Pulitzers. If Harmon never attended church instead of never attending synagogue, she would have written the same article. Her (nominal) Jewishness (like her dark eyes) is really irrelevant to the issue. You could do like they did in Germany and get rid of all the Joos and the situation wouldn’t change one bit. Focusing on Joos is a distraction from the real problem.

  116. @istevefan

    Galileo is often brought up by the left because it involves Christians going after a scientist, and thus reinforces the point the left likes to make that Christians are anti-science.

    Well, he comes to mind now not because “Christians going after a scientist,” and you know that. His case is just the biggest and best example of Dogma Going After Reason. Okay?

    If it’s good enough for Steve, its good enough for me.

    Don’t let “The Left™” steal a valuable meme.

    Geez, people. No good deed goes unpunished.

    And yet it moves.

  117. @Intelligent Dasein

    Nothing happened to Galileo except that he became a house guest in the palace of the Pope whom he wantonly insulted.

    Yes, whom he insulted by correctly stating his observations and logic.

    Nothing has happened to Watson except that he has been stripped of his titles and vilified in the press in front of the whole world. He is very much enjoying the same kind of excrement falling on his head, in complete accordance with Galileo’s observations of falling shit.

    You just love dogma don’t you?

    As others have written here, you are making a fool of yourself. See you in church. And I do believe in God, BTW.

    • Replies: @Ian M.
  118. “Psychology is too PC”

  119. @PhysicistDave

    Will read the book you mentioned.

    I just finished Für Volk und Führer, written at age 88 by a man who had passed worrying about or apologizing for his actions during his youth, Erwin Bartmann. Despite the incredible damage wreaked uponGermany by the Nazis, Bartmann remains defiantly obstinate that he would take the same course over his life, given the same initial conditions. Being near 90 means you will no longer bow and scrape for what you want to say and what you did.

    The tales of Soviet brutality towards prisoners of war, especially Waffen SS men, are harrowing. Why anybody would want to provoke Russia today and perhaps unleash that Brutality on the places that Russian troops might conquer is beyond me.

  120. @Escher

    He knows. He doesn’t care what the Lilliputians think anymore.

  121. Hail says: • Website
    @Lucas McCrudy

    Steven Rose, an influential thinker in the “radical science movement”

    To remove ambiguity: That’s (((Steven Rose))).

    Born in 1938 London, United Kingdom, [Steven Rose] was brought up as an Orthodox Jew

    Major life accomplishment:

    Critique of genetic determinism

    With (((Richard Lewontin))) and (((Leon Kamin))), (((Rose))) championed the “radical science movement”. The three criticized sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, and adaptationism, most prominently in the book Not in Our Genes (1984)

  122. @Anon

    these people are heartless and ruthless. They’d murder him if they could get away with it. Just look at the early USSR after the Harmons got a seat at the table.

  123. @sinatra's singing teacher

    Von Braun actually had a 1960 movie made about him:

    http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/246769|0/I-Aim-at-the-Stars.html

  124. Hail says: • Website
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Although not in the depth you may be looking for, and although I think compiled by an amateur, there is http://humanphenotypes.net for general reference.

    Entry on the Ethiopid racial para-type:

    Widespread African type, typical for regions with hot and dry climate. Ethiopids are characterised by very dark skin with a reddish tint, tight-curly hair, narrow, high nose, a tall, slender stature, and long heads and faces. Marked chin, thick lips. Different groups of Africa have been regarded Ethiopid, their common morphology sometimes results from adaption to a similar climate. Besides affinities to other Sub-Saharan Africans, they are linked to early Caucasoids who partially left and migrated back to Africa. The most typical variety is the East Ethiopid. North Ethiopids are shorter and more robust, South Ethiopids even taller and very slender. The latter contains a Maasai subvariety. Central Ethiopids live in Ethiopian highlands. Saharan Ethiopids possibly dominated North Africa prior to its desertification. Ancient varieties include Proto Ethiopids and Omotics.

    The bolded sentence may be the racial influence the author you quote rported seeing in Addis Ababa.

    Ethiopid composites:

    The classic Somali type is East Ethiopid, which the racial-anthropological literature finds to be rather tall.

    And the widely recognized tallest group on Earth (at least genotypically), the Nilotics, are not far off, as the crow flies, even if not closely related in terms of racial anthropology (i.e., Nilotics belong to their own branch). The Nilotic-vs.-BantuCongoid racial division line in eastern Africa famously runs right through Rwanda, with bad results for the former in the 1990s (i.e., Tutsis are Nilotics and Hutus and Bantu-Congoid (the Black racial stock Americans are most familiar with).

    I don’t know Rwandan ‘racial’ policy today, but I am sure they keep a lid on racial discussions; probably they’ve developed their own version of native race-denial ‘PC’ to keep the peace.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @Jim Bob Lassiter
  125. @Jack D

    the vast majority of thought leaders in race/iq denialism are jews: Lewontin, Boas, Gould, Rose, Kamin, Ignatiev, Diamond etc.

    To say this has nothing to do with judaism is absurd. It also obviously has something to do with white gentile psychology though.

  126. @Sean

    T. S. Eliot: Mankind cannot bear too much reality.

  127. “But leading geneticists say…”
    [We will keep our positions and pay
    Making fudgespeak our word,
    Not displeasing the herd:
    We’re more fit to survive in this way.]

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
  128. @Hypnotoad666

    “Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Harmon talking nonsense when she refers to being unable to “validate” a “hypothesis”?”

    Validity is a property of arguments, not of hypotheses. Amy Harmon has no clue about basic reasoning.

    I might even accept validity as a property of parking tickets or bus passes, but certainly not of hypotheses.

  129. @Jack D

    “Harmon is Jewish but the obsession with Joos around here is out of hand”

    Not really. With Jews being the driving force behind post-modernism, mass immigration into western countries, ‘white privilege’ and all that, it makes sense that they feature prominently in the discussions.

    Can you name famous non-Jewish feminists? It’s surprisingly difficult. Catherine MacKinnon is perhaps the only big name I can think of off the top of my head. Maybe Sunera Thobani, but she is definitely lesser profile.

  130. Jack D says:
    @Hail

    This phenotype website is surely run by a Nazi. Everyone knows that there is no such thing as a racial phenotype. Race is a social construct. I’ll bet this guy even thinks that the phenotypes differ not only in variables like height and skin color but also in intelligence. Nazi! He and Watson should stick their fascist pseudoscience where the sun don’t shine. No wonder he is an amateur – no legitimate academic has pursued work like this since 1945.

  131. @the one they call Desanex

    So I suggested that, if Laverne and Shirley could have a kid together, it would look like Amy Harmon. Is this whim fodder?

  132. Okechukwu says:

    All Watson has to do is substantiate his remarks. Is that too much to ask of a scientist? Seriously, this isn’t the 19th century.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  133. Okechukwu says:
    @Joe, Averaged

    Yeah, seriously! Suppose studies do come out to “validate such hypotheses?” Will Amy argue that her vicious campaign was righteous because Watson spoke correctly but without proper validation?

    Oh, so you want to base your deification of Watson on a supposition. See, that’s the problem right there. Watson hasn’t discovered something new and remarkable in the lab. All he’s done is express an opinion. An opinion which, by the way, is unsupported by the known facts.

    There’s a very long tradition of these pseudoscientific racialist ideas being proven false. So here we are in the 21st century and you want to accept Watson at face value, absent any evidence in support. Well, no thanks.

    You have no idea what future discoveries will reveal. It’s very possible that actual future scientific discoveries may, in fact, invert your cherished racial hierarchies. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if, based on genetic evidence, the smartest people in the world are found in Sub-Saharan Africa. In which case the scientist that postulates that hypothesis now will be the Galileo.

    • Troll: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @Absolutely
    , @bomag
  134. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:
    @Harry Baldwin

    Damn, I wish I realized at the time that Auster was in such dire situation. He was a very brave man and totally deserved to be supported. Not that I fully agreed with him most of the time but his writing was brilliant. In a more just world, he would have been a famous essayist.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
  135. @Intelligent Dasein

    They think you are making a scientific argument. They even seem to think that scientific arguments are also (pseudo-)philosophical, as though explaining the how also takes care of the why.

    We were talking about James Clerk Maxwell the other day. As a boy he incessantly asked how, how, how. He didn’t ask why, because he knew the answer to that already: he had the Bible, and believed it with holy simplicity for the rest of his life.

    So he didn’t need philosophy; we who do, know that answering the how gets us nowhere near to answering that insistent why, and indeed (as is so eminently clear every day on this site) often and insidiously obscures our vital need to have that why answered.

    It was Satan, after all, who bade Eve taste of the apple from that tree of the knowledge “of good and evil”. That is, of the contingent; worse, of the contingent seen, totemically and fatally, as the Absolute.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  136. Anonym says:
    @Jack D

    Harmon is Jewish but the obsession with Joos around here is out of hand. If Harmon didn’t write this article there are plenty of righteous leftist WASP women who would have loved to written it and coming up behind them there are millions upon millions of Latinos, Asians, etc. who would all like their own Pulitzers. If Harmon never attended church instead of never attending synagogue, she would have written the same article. Her (nominal) Jewishness (like her dark eyes) is really irrelevant to the issue. You could do like they did in Germany and get rid of all the Joos and the situation wouldn’t change one bit. Focusing on Joos is a distraction from the real problem.

    What has gotten out of hand is the systematic attempt at white genocide. It seems at some point, an influential contingent of elite Jews have decided that we are in the Amalek category. Our intelligent women are to be channeled into childless careers, dumbing us down. We are to have 1-2 children or somehow we overpopulate the earth, while SSAs can breed like rabbits and have the right to invade our territory. We are encouraged to welcome the invaders, to transfer our wealth to them. Our women are encouraged to mate with non-whites until we are some sort of coffee colored disunited mongrel people. Our heroes, like Watson, are to be denigrated, their statues toppled, their names to be forgotten. Our countries should be democratic, the franchises extended to everyone including non-whites and our own most stupid and gullible, and our numbers reduced to a minority so that we have no power and no weapons with which to resist.

    Well, how about no, Scott?

    This is a very nasty sort of thing to attempt to do, no one would ever try to do such a thing except by clandestine means because without that it would be ineffective. So, very few people besides the BLS of the world really fess up that this is the plan, but by the law of averages you get some fools even in a race of smart people. You don’t even need that though, you just need to figure it out inductively, posit that if you were trying to achieve outcome x, then you would want to institute a,b,c,d,e,f… and looky here, there is a,b,c…

    In any case, this is an obnoxious thing to do. I for one wish it to be walked back. It’s like catching a child who has squeezed all the toothpaste out of the tube. The child may claim that the toothpaste can’t be put back in there, but matter of fact it can, it’s just a lot of hard work that is about an order of magnitude plus harder than it was to squeeze it out in the first place. You just need to collect some toothpaste together, squeeze out the air, place the nozzle next to the toothpaste, create a vacuum, suck up some toothpaste, and repeat the process.

    Step one is to correctly identify such cases, to build up the pattern recognition capabilities in the goyim and also implicit in that process is that you know that we know. Of course, your first response is to do the tried and true sleight of hand and blame the zeitgeist. That dirty, nasty, despicable zeitgeist! But anyway, this process also builds some anger.

    If your people are going to walk it back, they are going to need some motivation. They are going to have to want to do it. Part of that is a process of persuasion that the current practices are not “Good for the Jews” (TM). Carrot, and stick. I genuinely think that the current plan doesn’t make sense… I don’t think the white goyim were really that bad of a host. You could do a lot worse than live among a high trust people who build functional societies (actually doing useful work that you can then parasitize), who look very much like you, share a lot of your DNA and who really only lose it after the chutzpah has gotten ridiculous.

    So with some introspection, you’ve got this tailor-made host who you… seem to want to wipe out through an ebola-like excessive virulence. It happens in nature, but collectively you guys have a fair bit on the ball and can see it’s a dumb idea, right? Right? Aren’t you guys more than just some Talmudic RNA?

    But with the current process in train with its own momentum, whites can’t afford to wait too long because otherwise we will soon be powerless. So it’s key to wake them up before it’s too late. And with that comes a potential stick. There is a risk there. You can always decide I suppose on doubling down on the defence. But I think the process of white genocide naturally pisses us off and causes us to become threat aware, raise hackles, etc. Has playing D been successful so far? I think by and large, not really.

    So maybe it’s worth picking up the phone or writing an email to the Harmons of the world who wield power at the propaganda choke points. They are going to listen to you, they certainly won’t listen to me. Even if they pause before writing such an article again, it might have been worth it.

    I would much prefer to just go back to focusing on career, some decadence, imagine a younger baby boomer type mentality with some tech gadgets. Steve could write about GCA I guess. It sounds like a fun life.

  137. @Jack D

    Jack D wrote to me:

    Well, until recently Hawking might have been in the running.

    I have, of course, a great deal of respect for Hawking, both because of his work in physics and because of the enormous adversity he overcame. But, as much as I would like to put Hawking or Feynman at the top (I took classes from Feynman, and I did once meet Hawking) , I think Watson does win that contest. (I’d fight to put Einstein at the top among all twentieth-century scientists: I suppose most physicists would.)

    Jack D also wrote:

    The whole point of making Watson an un-person is BECAUSE of and not despite his greatness. First of all, having Watson’s head mounted on her wall (even if he was old and feeble when she bagged him) is a very big trophy for a nobody like Harmon. 2nd, this shows everyone below Watson that no one is immune…

    Yeah. We call them “SJWs,” but “Red Guards” might be more accurate. At least, they are not (yet) actually physically murdering people like Watson.

    Watson is right of course that in a hundred years they will all only be remembered as the ignorant fools who harassed James Watson.

  138. @Okechukwu

    Indeed, it is a question of time before IQ researchers hit the heart of Wakanda.

    I’ve heard it is located somewhere around Nigeria.

  139. @Old Palo Altan

    Old Palo Alton wrote

    They think you are making a scientific argument. They even seem to think that scientific arguments are also (pseudo-)philosophical, as though explaining the how also takes care of the why.

    Oh, no! We most assuredly do not think he is making a “scientific argument.”

    But, our friendly neighborhood IDiot is indeed choosing to talk about science and scientists, and what he is saying is moronic. The fact that he would no doubt label it as “philosophical” does not change the fact that it is moronic.

    If I claimed that the earth was flat and claimed that that was my “philosophical” opinion, I would still be a fool.

  140. @Okechukwu

    Okechukwu wrote:

    All Watson has to do is substantiate his remarks. Is that too much to ask of a scientist?

    He presented it as a hypothesis: he explicitly said he hoped he would be proven wrong. Do you understand how science works? At all?

    Oke also wrote:

    Seriously, this isn’t the 19th century.

    Yeah, in the nineteenth century decent people valued this thing called “freedom of speech”!

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  141. @Intelligent Dasein

    Our local ID wrote to me:

    [Dave} You’re embarrassing yourself. Really embarrassing yourself.

    [ID} Is that really your first resort?

    I specifically addressed your attacks on modern physics: I’m happy to go into much more detail if any sane people here are interested.

    The ID also wrote:

    I believe the Platonic form of this entire response of yours is “Wow. Just wow.” The problem here is that I know what I’m talking about, and I know what you’re talking about, but you don’t know what I’m talking about.

    And, I find illuminating the Wittgensteinian context of your answer when taking into account a Popperian perspective on Russellian neo-monism if we compare and contrast Leibnizan paleo-monism to Cartesian rationalism.

    And, I made up that sentence without using one of the post-modern BS generators! (The scary thing, on re-reading my own sentence, is that it may actually mean something: at least, it is more meaningful than what you wrote!)

  142. @Hail

    I’m very appreciative of the anthropological science behind Bulb-headedism .

  143. bomag says:
    @Okechukwu

    Well, okay, I’ll grant everything you say if I can have a place filled with people of my choosing who believe incorrect things but we are left alone by the rest of the world.

    Then you and yours can go on to soar high, high!, into the sky.

  144. Okechukwu says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Do you understand how science works? At all?

    Yes, I understand how science works, as does Amy Harmon. You and others here do not understand how science works. Harmon is doing justice to the scientific method. You and others here would circumvent the scientific method to champion hypotheses that correspond with your worldview. That’s not how science works. All of you here, including Sailer, would be laughed out of any legitimate scientific conference.

    Yeah, in the nineteenth century decent people valued this thing called “freedom of speech”!

    Sheer stupidity. In the 19th century you could literally be killed for expressing an opinion. For example, people were killed for opposing slavery with nothing more than words. Now all you have to be concerned with is the disagreement of those with opposing views. This is precisely what’s happening to Watson and it’s eminently healthier than the 19th century status quo ante. People are opposing Watson’s unfounded racialist pseudoscience with words. These people have every much a right to speak as Watson.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  145. bomag says:
    @Cloudswrest

    Lavoisier… was beheaded because he was a class enemy (aristocrat).

    When asked that he be spared for his research, the judge in Lavoisier’s case replied, “the Republic has no need for scientists.”

    The progs then and now gave no quarter for past scientific achievement; if anything, they reveled in making an example of such a prominent person to reinforce the notion that their dogma trumps all.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  146. @Jack D

    So why don’t more Jews stand against this?

  147. @BigDickNick

    The hypothesis is that Amy Harmon, as a Jew, has leverage. Not only through likely preference in obtaining a position at NYT, but also as an inheritor of moral authority. It is a falsifiable hypothesis. You are welcome to falsify.

  148. bomag says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    The advances from the discovery of DNA etc have been substantial; compare what has been done in plant and animal science where we rock and roll without worrying about hurting people’s feelings.

    You might want to rethink your tack here.

  149. @BigDickNick

    I apologize. I intended my comment to be directed to Jack. Whom I respect.

  150. @Intelligent Dasein

    Our village ID wrote:

    Nothing happened to Galileo except that he became a house guest in the palace of the Pope whom he wantonly insulted.

    Are you intentionally lying or is it just that you never know anything about any matter on which you comment??

    Galileo was forced to abjure his (correct) opinions about celestial mechniacs: who knows how severe his punishment would have been had he refused to abjure those opinions.?

    Despite his abjuring the truth, Galileo’s punishment was not, as you falsely and maliciously claim, “that he became a house guest in the palace of the Pope whom he wantonly insulted.” On the contrary, Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for the remiander of his life for daring to speak truth to power.

    Admittedly, house arrest is not as severe as, say, rotting in some dungeon in the Vatican. But, if you think it is insignificant, let me make a modest proposal: let us subject you to house arrest for the remainder of your life.

    Even if you have a pleasant abode, I suspect you would find that more than slightly inconvenient!

    I do agree that merely insulting Pope Urban VIII was insufficient. Someone should have killed Urban VIII. Sic semper tyrannis.

  151. @ic1000

    Lest (or best?) we forget the *Lower* East Side…

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
  152. @Okechukwu

    Okechukwu swrote to me:

    Yes, I understand how science works, as does Amy Harmon. You and others here do not understand how science works.

    I have a PhD. in physics from Stanford University. As an undergrad, I was the top math/physics/astro student in my class at the most academically selective school in the country (Caltech). I’ve taken classes from three Nobel laureates (Feynman, Weinberg, and Thorne). I’ve published papers in leading scientific journals. I am inventor on a number of patents.

    Your scientific experience is………….?????

    But, yes, of course, you understand how science works and I don’t.

    Do you honestly believe anyone reading this is stupid enough to take you seriously.

    Let me be blunt: you have proven yourself to be an ignorant, uneducated fool. At least, most ignorant, uneducated people have enough sense not to demonstrate their shortcomings in public. You lack even that.

    The ignoramus also wrote:

    You and others here would circumvent the scientific method to champion hypotheses that correspond with your worldview.

    I did not “champion” any scientific hypotheses. I am merely defending James Watson’s right to present his scientific hypotheses without being fired.

    In you invincible ignorance, you seem to think that no scientist should ever present a hypothesis unless he has irrefutable, apodictic proof that the hypothesis is true. You are so ignorant that you cannot see that that would mean the end of science.

    Einstein did not have absolute proof for general relativity when he presented the theory: it was his publishing of the theory that inspired Eddington et al. to check the theory against observations in the famous 1919 solar-eclipse expedition. Had Einstein waited to publish until he had absolute proof, the theory would never have been published at all and therefore could never have been tested.

    Copernicus did not have proof of stellar parallax when he published the heliocentric theory. But why would anyone bother to measure parallax, which did later help to confirm the theory, had he never published the heliocentric theory in the first place?

    I could go on and on and on with examples of how the scientific method works and why it kills science if no scientist can every publish a hypothesis unless it has already been confirmed.

    But, with you, it wouldn’t matter, would it?

    You have no intention of actually learning anything about science at all. All you want to do is sit in the basement or the attic or whatever and malign people who, unlike yourself, have actually achieved something in life.

    You are a failure. You are truly and deeply contemptible. People like you should be ostracized from normal human society.

    I am tired of treating people like you with courtesy or respect.

    You are an ignorant and foolish jerk. Go stand in the corner, child. Forever.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  153. @Bardon Kaldian

    Bardon Kaldian wrote:

    although they shot themselves in the foot, the Church was scientifically right to discipline Galileo…

    Feyerabend commented on the Galileo affair as follows:

    The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism.

    Fyerabend was the Pee-wee Herman of twentieth-century philosophy: occasionally entertaining, on rare occasions even kinda cute in a perverted way, but not taken seriously by grown-ups of any sort.

    Have you ever actually tried to read anything he wrote? (I have — not a pleasant experience.)

    Everyone who is not mentally challenged — most assuredly including all of the current members of the church hierarchy — now know that Galileo was in fact correct that heliocentrism is true and geocentrism is false.

    You too do know this. Don’t you?

    The bizarre attacks recently on Galileo by certain Catholic dogmatists hinge on claiming that, while he turned out to be correct, Galileo did not have evidence to show he was correct back in the 1630s.

    They are wrong. They are ignorant of the relevant science.

    The Ptolemaic system had various epicycles that were all in phase with each other and all had an equal period of 365 1/4 days. Furthermore, these various epicycles had as their centers various empty points in space. This was all very strange.

    Copernicus showed that all these different epicycles had the same period and phase because they were really all just reflections of one single orbit — the orbit of the earth around the sun.

    In effect, Ptolemy took unwitting advantage of the commutative law of vector addition to add the vectors in the wrong order: first, he took the vector that actually goes from the sun to a planet and started it wrongly at the earth and ended it at some empty point in space; and then secondly added the vector from the earth to the sun to finally get to the actual position of the planet. (Yes, I know there are various complications for the inner vs. outer planers, for offsets, etc. It does not change the general picture.)

    Unfortunately, American science education is so woefully inadequate, that very few Americans grasp this.

    Furthermore, the Copernican theory, correctly predicted the phases of Venus, which the Ptolemaic theory did not: this is because the Copernican theory allowed the correct normalization of the vectors from all those different epicycles (because they were really all just one vector!). Galileo observed these phases and understood that this was evidence for the heliocentric theory.

    Finally, of course, Galileo observed that the moons of Jupiter orbited Jupiter, so he knew that not all the heavenly bodies orbited the earth.

    All this provided very, very strong evidence for the Copernican theory.

    Galileo was right to claim that he knew heliocentrism to be true. His critics, then and now, are either ignorant of the evidence he possessed or too dumb to understand it.

    So, contrary to your claim, the Church was not “scientifically right to discipline Galileo…” Of course, even if Galileo had been scientifically wrong, it would have been tyrannical of the Church to infringe his freedom of speech by preventing him from stating his opinions. Indeed, the Church’s action justified armed, lethal resistance against the Church whether Galileo was scientifically right or wrong.

    Fortunately, the last five centuries of European history has stripped the Church of its ability to exercise any serious authority, and the Church is now headed towards a richly-deserved extinction throughout Europe.

    But, in any case, Galileo was scientifically correct: he had overwhelming scientific evidence against the Ptolemaic system.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  154. [Warning: Nabok Ov-Topic]

    Zvuki Action At A Distance?
    Or: Unified (Andrew) Field Theory?

    -Am unable to resist the urge to shamelessly keep the ol’ Nabokovian musical roll call rolling by adding something iSteve-y Amy Harmon-y from the short story, “Sounds.” A quick word search of it also yielded positive results for “wave,” “strings” and “vibrations.” Expanding on a reader’s earlier comment – it seems that every other poster here has a PhD. in economics, physics, mathematics, etc. – and for reasons not worth going into, I escaped without even a high school level of proficiency in physics. According to the footnotes of “The Stories of Vladimir Nabokov, ” ‘Sounds’ ” (Zvuki) was written in September 1923…” – so perhaps not much should be “read into” the passage below – though it might be fun for those more knowledgeable than I or me to try. -And it would probably be “not even wrong” (as well as anachronistic) to suggest that “the wave function collapses” when the narrator’s mistress (spoiler alert) announces that she’s getting a divorce.

    Seriously, In My Uriah Heepish Humble Opinion, the following excerpt is really rather good (and will stuff any more solipsistic punning into a separate reply to myself )

    [emphasis added for “harmony”]

    “And when I withdrew deep into myself the whole world seemed like that–homogeneous, congruent, bound by the laws of *harmony*. I myself, you, the carnations, at that instant all became vertical chords on musical staves. I realized that everything in the world was an interplay of identical particles comprising different kinds of consonance: the trees, the water, you. . .All was unified, equivalent, divine.”

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  155. PapayaSF says:

    Watson has the science on his side.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912000840

    Do pigmentation and the melanocortin system modulate aggression and sexuality in humans as they do in other animals?

    Abstract
    Pigmentation of the hair, skin, cuticle, feather and eye is one of the most salient and variable attributes of vertebrates. In many species, melanin-based coloration is found to be pleiotropically linked to behavior. We review animal studies that have found darker pigmented individuals average higher amounts of aggression and sexual activity than lighter pigmented individuals. We hypothesize that similar relationships between pigmentation, aggression, and sexuality occur in humans. We first review the literature on non-human animals and then review some of the correlates of melanin in people, including aggression and sexual activity. Both within human populations (e.g., siblings), and between populations (e.g., races, nations, states), studies find that darker pigmented people average higher levels of aggression and sexual activity (and also lower IQ). We conceptualize skin color as a multigenerational adaptation to differences in climate over the last 70,000 years as a result of “cold winters theory” and the “Out-of-Africa” model of human origins. We propose life history theory to explain the covariation found between human (and non-human) pigmentation and variables such as birth rate, infant mortality, longevity, rate of HIV/AIDS, and violent crime.

  156. Maybe, this issue could be addressed by passive-aggressive means, letting the PC philosophy reign supreme via strategic apathy. When the PC hallway monitors insist that equality should supersede quality, leaders in the field should stand down, saying, meh, it is fine to equate mediocrity with genius-grade work. Recommend lesser minds for the highest posts in the field, or just watch the circus unfold. Apply the passive-aggressive approach described in the linked article. It explains how to deal with a corrupt oligarchy in the center of a hulled republic, in which you cannot vote for anyone, in either party, who is not controlled by corporate money. Don’t play ball. Don’t give the game the illusion of a fair set of rules or a non-rigged outcome.

    https://www.theburningplatform.com/2019/01/11/take-this-vote-and-shove-it/

  157. @PhysicistDave

    You are addressing a wrong issue. It is not the point of geocentrism. heliocentrism, epicycles etc. Many important minds remained convinced of geocentrism (Francis Bacon, Tycho Brache, ..) at that time & Galileo was not sufficiently right when he made his claims (esp. re his explanation of tides, which was crucial & wrong). At that point of history, heliocentric theory was half/half & as messy as geocentric.

    Galileo’s attitude was the clincher. He told the pope, Urban, who was his friend, that he would in his work expose both geocentric & heliocentric systems parallel and give no preference to either. Pope had no objections. But Galileo in his major work explicitly denounced all adherents of geocentric system as dumb asses & morons, which naturally enraged pope, who was as bad tempered as Galileo, as a betrayal from an old friend & the whole affair ensued.

    Scientific community was at that time divided over those two systems; wider cultural community was mostly geocentric & as were all churches & denominations. The Galileo affair & its repercussions had almost nothing to do with further scientific developments in Italy, which was, by then, mostly exhausted after centuries of cultural dominance in all areas & entered a long period of decadence, while formerly not so developed north (France, England, Netherlands, Switzerland, parts of Germany,..) entered a new creative phase.

    After all, putting the blame on Church on this affair as something truly historically momentous re freedom of thought in Italy & Catholic countries is absurd. This same church had established Gregorian calendar all civilized world uses today, more or less at the same time of the Galileo case (OK, a few decades earlier).

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    , @HA
  158. JimS says:
    @TWS

    This is a reply to your comment which triggered this question from me, but it is actually directed at Mr. Sailer regarding his Law of Female Journalism:

    Is it possible that the Law is a special case of a more general law, in which the most heartfelt articles by any journalist are those that raise their own sexual market value? In the case of women, that largely reduces to “hotter looking.” In the case of men, it would be about status and power. Do you notice if in general, male articles are about posturing to make them on top, come the revolution?

    If opinion writing is largely an expression of a genetic competition, it would all hold together. Just a thought.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  159. @JimS

    Writing about baseball statistics had a lot to do with getting better jobs — as baseball front office executives — although the time frame was unbelievably long: e.g., up to 28 years.

    Virtually none of the top baseball statistics amateur analysts wrote in the 1993-2008 range about the impact of steroids on baseball statistics, which is a tell that they didn’t want to close off future career prospects by coming across as Not a Team Player. Even though the impact of steroids on baseball statistics was the most obviously interesting thing going on with baseball statistics in that time period.

  160. Andy says:

    My guess is that deep down Ms. Harmon knows Watson is correct. But the temptation for her to become a SJW heroine denouncing him is too big.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  161. Okechukwu says:
    @Andy

    My guess is that deep down Ms. Harmon knows Watson is correct. But the temptation for her to become a SJW heroine denouncing him is too big.

    She knows no such thing. Stop deluding yourself. Your ideology is wracked by deep and pervasive self-delusion

  162. Okechukwu says:
    @PhysicistDave

    I have a PhD. in physics from Stanford University. As an undergrad, I was the top math/physics/astro student in my class at the most academically selective school in the country (Caltech). I’ve taken classes from three Nobel laureates (Feynman, Weinberg, and Thorne). I’ve published papers in leading scientific journals. I am inventor on a number of patents.

    Everyone’s a learned scholar or eminent scientist on the Internet. Funny that with these alleged credentials you still don’t know how science works. And instead of engaging in real science in the real world, you roll around in the muck in this den of fake science.

    My wife, who is probably half your age if not younger, is an actual PhD. I have traveled with her to conferences around the world. None of this phony nonsense you people espouse here is ever in evidence. Indeed, Unz “science” would be entirely alien and unrecognizable to her and her colleagues.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    , @TTSSYF
  163. @Bardon Kaldian

    Bardon Kaldian wrote to me:

    Scientific community was at that time divided over those two systems; wider cultural community was mostly geocentric & as were all churches & denominations.

    The scientific community today is divided over superstring theory, the multiverse, eternal inflation, etc.

    So… let’s turn these issues over to the Inquisition and subject everyone on the losing side to life-long house arrest!

    Do you get this?

    Science thrives on disagreement, free and open debate, and attempts to confirm or disconfirm hypotheses. It does not thrive on penal punishment for those currently on the outs.

    Only would-be tyrants, such as you, think otherwise.

    BK also wrote:

    Galileo’s attitude was the clincher. He told the pope, Urban, who was his friend, that he would in his work expose both geocentric & heliocentric systems parallel and give no preference to either. Pope had no objections. But Galileo in his major work explicitly denounced all adherents of geocentric system as dumb asses & morons, which naturally enraged pope, who was as bad tempered as Galileo, as a betrayal from an old friend & the whole affair ensued.

    So??? Galileo had a “bad attitude”? I assure you that I consider you to have a “bad attitude.”

    So, that makes it okay for me to lock you up for the rest of your life?? (It is tempting…)

    No one doubts Urban VIII’s right to publicly express his disagreement with Galileo. But that is not what happened. Instead, Urban’s illegitimate regime subjected Galileo to penal sanctions.

    And, that justified assassination of Urban VIII. Sic semper tyrannis.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  164. @reactionry

    Personally, I like the Beach Boys’ summary of theoretical physics:

    I’m pickin’ up good vibrations…

    • Replies: @reactionry
  165. @Okechukwu

    The lying little ignoramus wrote to me:

    Funny that with these alleged credentials you still don’t know how science works.

    You have not been told you can get out of the corner yet, child. Game’s up. You’re scum Proven. Forever. Get used to it.

  166. The Independent in the UK has an unintentionally funny headline about the Red Guards’ attack on Watson:

    DNA pioneer James Watson has final honours stripped…

    Yeah, stripped of “final honours”… unless you count one tiny remaining honour from some little outfit up in Sweden way back in 1962.

    1962?? Ancient history.

  167. @PhysicistDave

    The scientific community today is divided over superstring theory, the multiverse, eternal inflation, etc.

    So… let’s turn these issues over to the Inquisition and subject everyone on the losing side to life-long house arrest!

    Sorry, but your rhetoric is inflammatory, ahistorical & ultimately wrong.

    These were 16th & 17th C when over 15 million people were killed in wars of religion, when scientists were a mixture of zealots, fanatics & charlatans with only feeble streaks of something that later emerged as the dominant rule of scientific discourse (Bruno, now, would have been probably a New Age guru; Newton a creationist fanatic bent on physical destruction of his theological & ideological enemies – only if he could & Galileo an egomaniacal nut).

    Your attempt to describe the Galileo affair as a clash between unrestricted human reason imbued with liberty of spirit & civil discourse on one hand, and oppressive proto-totalitarian obscurantist force for human bondage, irrationality & unflinching dogmatism has nothing to do with historical realities of both protagonists.

    Galileo- quelle horreur- was allowed to write & publish his masterwork in “captivity”, without any repercussions – and everybody knew what he was up to. I wonder could he had done something similar in any gulag, or, in much easier circumstances, could Georg Cantor or Semmelweis fared better (and not being humiliated & destroyed, in 19th & 20th C), Pascual Jordan robbed of Nobel or Everett III relegated to obscurity & life of quiet desperation.

    You simply don’t know what you’re talking about & are simplistic re history & human nature.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  168. @Bardon Kaldian

    The totalitarian Bardon wrote to me:

    Sorry, but your rhetoric is inflammatory…

    As opposed tp your attempts to justify tyrannical interference with science, eh?

    Our local totalitarian also wrote:

    These were 16th & 17th C when over 15 million people were killed in wars of religion, when scientists were a mixture of zealots, fanatics & charlatans with only feeble streaks of something that later emerged as the dominant rule of scientific discourse (Bruno, now, would have been probably a New Age guru; Newton a creationist fanatic bent on physical destruction of his theological & ideological enemies – only if he could & Galileo an egomaniacal nut).

    Yeah, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were not very nice. Perhaps you have not heard, but the twentieth century was even worse.

    Other people’s crimes do not justify further crimes against innocent people. Stalin did not justify Hitler. Leopold’s crimes in the Congo did not justify Mao’s crimes. And, the crimes of the Thirty Years’ War do not vindicate the evil monster Urban VIII.

    Your claim that Newton somehow came close to being “a creationist fanatic bent on physical destruction of his theological & ideological enemies” is a bizarre slander: who on earth did Newton seriously want to kill???

    And, you view Galileo as “an egomaniacal nut”??? As, opposed, say, to yourself, the very model of a sane, humble individual??

    Look: let’s be clear here — you are an evil apologist for tyranny. Morally, you should spend the rest of your life in prison (okay, “house arrest”), since you seem determined to defend that punishment for Galileo.

    Alas, we live in a country that still (sorts, kinda) has the rule of law, so we cannot subject you to the punishment that you so richly deserve. All we can do is denounce you as the evil man you are.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  169. @PhysicistDave

    Newton actually got killed many people whom he suspected were guilty of tampering with his minting profession. He considered Catholics to be Satanic worshippers & wanted them not too friendly a destiny:
    http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/contexts/CNTX00001

    Some time after this, they asserted, Roman Catholicism had perverted Christian doctrine and worship, and injected into it the spirit of persecution described as the Mystery of Iniquity in 2 Thessalonians 2:6. In Newton’s parallel narrative universe, the Apostasy had set in almost as soon as Constantine had become the patron of Christianity in the 310s. For Newton the architects of orthodox Trinitarian Roman Christianity were hideous idolaters and persecutors, rightly tortured and killed for their crimes by divinely inspired goths, Vandals and Huns. Underlying this view was a passionate hatred of the idolatry and persecution that was outlawed by the first two commandments. This drove both his anti-Catholicism and his anti-Trinitarianism, which were the core elements of the same terrible apostasy. In attacking the doctrinal foundations of the Trinity, he condemned by extension the central mystery of the Church of England

    https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/church-heresy-and-pure-religion

    Along with his alchemy & Biblical chronology, which he devoted more than 70% of his energy & time to, we cannot describe Newton anything less than a religious fanatic even by standards of his time.

    Also, you conveniently forgot to address cases of Georg Cantor, Ignaz Semmelweis, Hugh Everett III, Nikolai Vavilov, …who were either destroyed or marginalized not by any ecclesiastical authority, but by the very jealousy, dogmatism or authority of their colleagues or scientists in authority who destroyed other people’s lives, like Kronecker, Cauchy, Konstantin Mereschkowski.

    There is no absolutely free discourse in a vacuum & people are driven by various, frequently selfish motives, careerist & authoritarian motives in any society- especially if this society is a totalitarian one (Lysenko case in the USSR). What is disingenuous is that Galileo case, something actually benign by standards of that time, is elevated in anti-Catholic & anti-Christian polemic to something completely incommensurate with its weight, if we judge it by taking all sides & all arguments.

    Anyway, no point in talking abut this matter anymore.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  170. @istevefan

    Was that “Kingpin” of the Senate, Strom Thurmond, Munsoned for “Bowling Alone”?

    Telephone Tag Lines-
    Alexander Graham Bell Curve: Come here – I want to see you, Dr. Watson

    • Replies: @reactionry
  171. @reactionry

    We Are Not A Lott Of Who We Are

    Also see ala the Horse Nonsense of Sellar & Yeatman:

    How I Brought the Good News of Axe to Trent

  172. HA says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    At that time & Galileo was not sufficiently right when he made his claims (esp. re his explanation of tides, which was crucial & wrong).

    There was also the stellar parallax issue, which wasn’t resolved until about two centuries later.

    The main reason the Catholic Church opposed the teaching of heliocentrism as a fact was that it was contrary to the science of the time…Secondly, a revolving earth would imply a stellar parallax. Given that neither of these effects were observed, the Greeks and their Roman, medieval and early modern successors all quite reasonably concluded that the earth was the centre of the cosmos. Because that was certainly how it looked.

    Copernicus seems to have believed that heliocentrism was fact, but knew that his model did not prove it. Galileo definitely believed it was fact and presented arguments that he felt indicated this. But his arguments – based on sunspots and the action of tides – were hopelessly flawed (they were actually completely wrong) and were refuted and rejected by other scholars at the time.

    At that point of history, heliocentric theory was half/half & as messy as geocentric.

    The argument of beauty/simplicity that influenced Galileo has also had mixed results as far as guiding dogmas go. He argued for circular orbits as opposed to the less perfect ellipses which turned out to be more correct. Kepler likewise wasted years of his career trying to derive the relative orbital radii of the planets from the Platonic solids. And as we now know, the barycenter of the solar system is typically outside the “surface” of the sun, and plots a crazy erratic orbit that make epicycles seem downright angelic.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  173. @Bardon Kaldian

    Our local totalitarian wrote:

    Newton actually got killed many people whom he suspected were guilty of tampering with his minting profession.

    Are you talking about counterfeiters??? Do you know that counterfeiting is against the law in most countries?

    Our totalitarian also wrote:

    He considered Catholics to be Satanic worshippers & wanted them not too friendly a destiny…

    Well… your link does not support your slanders against another great scientist (is there any great scientist you haven’t slandered — Darwin, Kepler, Copernicus?).

    What your link does show is that Newton, of course, despised the Roman Catholic Church for its obvious corruption, idolatry, and outright polytheism, just as all decent and thoughtful people always have. Of course, it is still true today, which is why the RCC is now known as the Roman Pedophile Church.

    Thanks for your link, though: it increases my admiration for Sir Isaac a great deal. I urge everyone to read it.

    Our local totalitarian also wrote:

    Also, you conveniently forgot to address cases of Georg Cantor, Ignaz Semmelweis, Hugh Everett III, Nikolai Vavilov, …who were either destroyed or marginalized not by any ecclesiastical authority, but by the very jealousy, dogmatism or authority of their colleagues or scientists in authority who destroyed other people’s lives, like Kronecker, Cauchy, Konstantin Mereschkowski.

    Were any of those people imprisoned for the rest of their lives (yes, I know, “house arrest” — he was not free to go, “wrongful imprisonment,” in legal terms) as Galileo was?

    I actually know a lot of details about Everett, since he was in the field in which I also have done research. Hugh led a very strange and bizarre life, but it seems to have been the life he wanted to lead: see Adam Becker’s recent book What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics. And, I will tell you that there are various extremely serious technical problems with Hugh’s work that go under the name of the “probability-measure problem” and “the “preferred-basis problem.” In truth, his work is most probably nonsense: the physics community has probably taken his rather goofy ideas more seriously than they should be taken. Makes for good sci-fi though!

    The totalitarian also wrote:

    Anyway, no point in talking abut this matter anymore.

    Indeed. We know what you are now: a fanatic supporter of a truly evil organization that has brought great suffering to humankind and who wants to suppress human freedom any way you can.

    Your writing indicates that English is not your native language. Hopefully, you do not reside in the USA. If you live outside the USA, stay away. If you live in the USA, go back where you came from. Now.

    Totalitarians like you are not welcome here. We have enough problems without importing totalitarian foreigners.

    I would though really appreciate it if you would show you are not a hypocrite by subjecting yourself to imprisonment in your house for the rest of your life, just as was done to Galileo. You can do it: it is the will of God.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    , @Ian M.
  174. @HA

    HA wrote:

    The argument of beauty/simplicity that influenced Galileo has also had mixed results as far as guiding dogmas go.

    Yeah, reasonable people could of course have argued over the details. The problem with the Church hierarchy was not that they argued with Galileo but rather that they thought penal punishment was a good substitute for open debate.

    By the way, I myself have been harping on parallax for years, in this blog and other places, as the final nail in the coffin of geocentrism. In truth, though, Galileo killed the Ptolemaic theory, and the Tychonic system was hanging by a thread. Once Kepler’s work was fully understood and appreciated, that was pretty much it for Tycho’s model: it would have been pretty bizarre to try to integrate Kepler’s laws into Tycho’s model.

    And, once Newton came along and explained Kepler’s laws by the universal law of gravitation… well, I do not know how anyone could make that work in the Tychomic system except by doing everything in a heliocentric system and then just mechanically doing a change of coordinates to a non-inertial, earth-centered system. Trivial mathematically, but conceptually unenlightening.

    So, the measurement of stellar parallax was ultimately rather anti-climactic. Long before then, almost no one could defend any sort of geocentric system (excluding of course some unthinking Catholics).

    An interesting aside: stellar aberration, discovered in the late 1600s but only successfully explained by Bradley shortly after Newton’s death, was also conclusive evidence for the motion of the earth — obviously, this long antedated Bessel’s measurement of stellar parallax. However, aberration is more difficult to understand: you need relativity to get it exactly right (although the basic idea can be understood non-relativistically). So, we should really give Bradley, not Bessel, credit for putting the final nail in the coffin of geocentrism.

    But, as I said above, geocentrism in any form was really dead after Kepler and Newton’s work anyway.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @HA
  175. @Jim Don Bob

    The vinyl I’ve got around here someplace is “Golden Filth,” but the YouTube linked with the album cover had too long an intro. The rhyming of “Lower East Side: with “make her my bride” suggests that they were rock-ribbed conservatives with strong family values. It’s possible that a “slum goddess” would be accepted by such a family if she, like Harmony, were stiff-necked* proud possessors of the maternal/mitochondrial DNA k2a2.

    * see Solzhenitzen’s description of Chechens in the Gulag.

  176. @PhysicistDave

    I really don’t see the point in “discussing” (or pretending to discuss) anything with someone who shares these beliefs:

    What your link does show is that Newton, of course, despised the Roman Catholic Church for its obvious corruption, idolatry, and outright polytheism, just as all decent and thoughtful people always have. Of course, it is still true today, which is why the RCC is now known as the Roman Pedophile Church.

    Indeed. We know what you are now: a fanatic supporter of a truly evil organization that has brought great suffering to humankind and who wants to suppress human freedom any way you can.

    I would though really appreciate it if you would show you are not a hypocrite by subjecting yourself to imprisonment in your house for the rest of your life, just as was done to Galileo. You can do it: it is the will of God.

    This reminds me of resident antisemites who are beyond reach of any rational argument; also, they project their personal obsessions on other people & are almost invariably swept into the vortex of ad hominem arguments irradiating their own personal fixations.

    You wrote some things I agree with; some I disagree with; also, you had freely-associated & strayed into areas that have nothing to do with the discussed subject.

    No, this paste exchange of opinions has been useless.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  177. TTSSYF says:
    @Anonymous

    His brother was a successful novelist. I would think he would have helped Auster out financially.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  178. @TTSSYF

    Not brother, cousin. Larry Auster’s cousin was literary novelist Paul Auster.

    I wouldn’t know, but I kind of doubt there’s enough money in being a respected but not famous highbrow novelist to help out cousins.

    • Agree: TTSSYF
  179. @Bardon Kaldian

    Bardon Kaldian wrote to me:

    No, this paste exchange of opinions has been useless.

    Oh, it has served my goals very well indeed! Yours, not so much.

    I’ve shown, with a great deal of help from you (I do appreciate your help!), what an apologist for Catholicism such as yourself is actually committed to: defending the unlawful imprisonment for life of an innocent man (who, yes, had an attitude!) because that innocent man was spreading scientific views that ended up being correct but that the Church you defend did not want published.

    It is bizarrely odd that you wrote:

    This reminds me of resident antisemites…

    After all, it is you, isn’t it, who recently wrote:

    The race clearly different from all others are blacks/Africans. They are a species apart (no Neanderthal admixture).

    I view black folks as part of the human species. I do not despise anyone because of the race or ethnic group in which he is born.

    But, I do have the utmost contempt for anyone, such as yourself, who chooses to be an apologist for tyranny against any innocent human being.

    You are evil. The Church you defend is evil and has been engaged in evil for thousands of years — from murder of pagans in Imperial days to torture of heretics in the High Middle Ages to enabling pedophilia in our own time.

    The world will be better off without that Church, and that day is coming: the Roman Pedophile Church is largely becoming a Third World sect that will eventually die out as the Third World modernizes, just as it is already largely dead in Europe (the Church in the USA is increasingly populated by Third World immigrants).

    As Voltaire said, “Écrasez l’infâme!”

    And, again, thank you for your very useful help in displaying the evil you have revealed.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  180. TTSSYF says:
    @Okechukwu

    A PhD in what? Depending on what it is, that might go a long way in explaining why she and her colleagues would find the science discussed on this website to be “entirely alien and unrecognizable” (I’m sure Harmon does…isn’t that the whole point of her argument?) And of what consequence is it that she might be half Phys Dave’s age? A gratuitous slam?

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  181. Okechukwu says:
    @TTSSYF

    A PhD in what? Depending on what it is, that might go a long way in explaining why she and her colleagues would find the science discussed on this website to be “entirely alien and unrecognizable”

    Her PhD is in the biological sciences, emphasizing human genetics and DNA. That’s why I mentioned it, although I should’ve been more fulsome in my reply to make that fact clearer.

    In the real world of this discipline, on the cutting edge, where Noble Prize winners and future potential Nobel Prize winners are active, the stuff obsessed over in the pseudoscience circles of the Internet (race/IQ, race realism, HBD) is nowhere to be found. They deal with important matters like the prevention or mitigation of the incidence or spread of cancer in the human body.

    I had occasion to meet this gentleman at a scientific conference:

    https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2018/honjo/facts/

    I assure you, he will not recognize the “science” of Unz Review. Not one second of any real scientist’s time is spent on “race science” in terms of ascertaining which race is more or less intelligent, more or less moral or more or less altruistic and so on. These propositions are totally alien to their frame of reference and are considered ridiculous. In fact at the cellular and molecular levels, race vanishes. In fact an immortal cell line, known as Hela, is the oldest, most prolific and most commonly used human cell line in scientific research throughout the world. Those cells were contributed by a black woman. No one cares.

    Why are her cells so important?

    Henrietta’s cells were the first immortal human cells ever grown in culture. They were essential to developing the polio vaccine. They went up in the first space missions to see what would happen to cells in zero gravity. Many scientific landmarks since then have used her cells, including cloning, gene mapping and in vitro fertilization.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/henrietta-lacks-immortal-cells-6421299/

    • Replies: @OC
    , @TTSSYF
    , @PhysicistDave
  182. OC says:
    @Okechukwu

    And CHO cells, frequently used to produce antibodies for use in humans, come from hamsters. Thus species is a meaningless concept. Only pseudoscience speciesist “biodiversity” circles obsess over it.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  183. Okechukwu says:
    @OC

    And CHO cells, frequently used to produce antibodies for use in humans, come from hamsters.

    Can hamsters reproduce with humans?

    • Replies: @OC
  184. Anonymous[372] • Disclaimer says:
    @PhysicistDave

    So, the measurement of stellar parallax was ultimately rather anti-climactic. Long before then, almost no one could defend any sort of geocentric system (excluding of course some unthinking Catholics).

    Anyone who believes in the inerrancy of scripture–whether Catholic or Protestant or Jew–must believe in geocentrism.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  185. TTSSYF says:
    @Okechukwu

    Of course no one in your wife’s field focuses at all on race and IQ, race realism, and HBD. That’s the whole point of this conversation. It’s not that those topics are without meaning or not interesting. It’s that any mention of them is taboo in today’s society, and you confirm that with your reply. That’s the whole reason why when someone, such as Watson, dares to say anything about it, he is essentially wiped out of existence.

    For just about every topic under the sun, you will find a human who is interested in studying it, and race, IQ, and other group traits are no exception. Who are you to tell someone that he or she shouldn’t study it or, if they do, they are “obsessing” about it? What are you so afraid of? We should not be silencing such studies or any mention of them.

    And as far as Nobel prize winners are concerned — the Nobel committee lost me when they awarded the Peace Prize to Obama eight months or so after he was sworn in.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
    , @Okechukwu
  186. @Bardon Kaldian

    The evil totalitarian wrote to me:

    Vox hysterici.

    Hmmm:

    hystericus
    From the Ancient Greek ὑστερικός (husterikós, “suffering in the womb, hysterical”), from ὑστερά (husterá, “womb”) from the Greek belief that hysteria was caused by a disturbance in the uterus and that it belonged exclusively to women.

    No, spawn of evil, I am not a woman — neither cis- nor trans-. “Dave” is a male name in English. (“Bardon”…hmmm.)

    The spawn of evil also wrote:

    The race clearly different from all others are blacks/Africans. They are a species apart (no Neanderthal admixture).

    You have been measured and found to be what you are.

  187. @Okechukwu

    Anyone want to place odds on the proposition that “Okechukwu” is lying through his/her/its/zher teeth in that post.

    I mean, he/she/it/zhe has already been proven to be a liar…

    And, child, no one has said you can get out of the corner yet. Just be quiet: adults are in the room.

  188. HA says:
    @PhysicistDave

    “The problem with the Church hierarchy was not that they argued with Galileo but rather that they thought penal punishment was a good substitute for open debate.”

    That’s yet another gross generalization and more projection and retconning by those who fancy themselves as the white knights of science. As O’Neill notes in the above link and elsewhere, there were several other theories of planetary motion at play during Galileo’s time, none of which received the Galileo treatment. Galileo’s own work was subjected to years of debate and back-and-forth (the opening salvo in the case against him was issued almost two decades before the verdict, but the case was pretty much laid to rest after Jesuit astronomers built their own telescopes and confirmed his observations, including the ones about Jupiter; it was reopened only after Galileo’s book was published — in which he cast the Pope, his patron, as the “simpleton”). In other words, it was never the science that did him in. Nor was it a lack of open debate. Moreover Bellarmine, one of the cardinals hearing the case, affirmed that church doctrines regarding scientific accuracy of the Bible would indeed have to be modified if they could not pass scientific muster (though, in that case, the science would have to be solid) so that’s not the problem either.

    Things certainly could have turned out more like the Sagans and Degrasse-Tysons are now claiming — I mean, look at how sola scriptura young-earth Biblical-inerrancy types regard Darwin and evolution to this very day — but that’s just not how it played out. Again, as O’Neill notes, some of Galileo’s staunchest defenders were churchmen, while some of his most bitter opponents were fellow scientists. In the end, the available evidence simply wasn’t enough to render a verdict one way or another which is why his assertions and pronouncements were condemned. If he had phrased things differently and less dogmatically, it probably would have gone better for him.

    As others have noted, given what the modern world has done in the name of Lysenkoism (not to mention what churchmen like Lemaitre and Mendel have managed to do) it’s time to lay to rest the Black Legend mythology surrounding Galileo’s trial once and for all, and this quaint faith-based notion that science needed to be saved from the dastardly designs of the Spanish Inquisition or whatever. There is far better clay out there from which the self-professed champions of science can fashion their idols. The same goes comments like the one earlier about the “bizarre attacks recently on Galileo by certain Catholic dogmatists”. (O’Neill is himself an atheist.)

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  189. Ian M. says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    You just love dogma don’t you?

    Can’t speak for Intelligent Dasein, but I love dogma.

    “[Man’] cradle should be surrounded by dogmas, and when his reason is awakened, it should find all his opinions ready-made, at least all those relating to his conduct. Nothing is so important to him as prejudices, Let us not take this word in a bad sense. It does not necessarily mean false ideas, but only, in the strict sense of the word, opinions adopted before any examination. Now these sorts of opinions are man’s greatest need, the true elements of his happiness, and the Palladium of empires.” – Joseph de Maistre

  190. Ian M. says:
    @PhysicistDave

    You are in high dudgeon about Galileo’s house arrest, and then in the next breath say that Pope Urban VIII should have been murdered?

    Who’s the totalitarian again?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  191. Okechukwu says:
    @TTSSYF

    Of course no one in your wife’s field focuses at all on race and IQ, race realism, and HBD. That’s the whole point of this conversation. It’s not that those topics are without meaning or not interesting.

    Those are all absurd pseudoscientific ideologies that fall apart under minor scrutiny. Science will never respect hypotheses that are so easily refuted and falsified.

    It’s that any mention of them is taboo in today’s society, and you confirm that with your reply.

    It’s taboo because it’s fake. It wouldn’t be taboo if it were real. Rather, it would be triumphant by virtue of the sheer weight of the evidence supporting it. But racist pseudoscience is singularly bereft of evidence. Moreover, as long as one can never assess any individual’s intelligence on the basis of his race or skin color, racist pseudoscience will never establish itself beyond an Internet fringe element, who, by the way, are motivated by factors other than science. Everyone knows what their true motivations are. In fact it’s often presumed that these “true believers” don’t actually believe what they profess since it’s presumed further that no one can be that dumb.

    That’s the whole reason why when someone, such as Watson, dares to say anything about it, he is essentially wiped out of existence.

    What Watson needs to do is present tangible, verifiable and reproducible genetic evidence. No one cares what he believes. No one cares about his anecdotes. The world operates on facts, on evidence.

    Remember this quote from the article:

    Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory revoked the honorary titles held by its longtime leader James D. Watson on Friday, describing as “unsubstantiated and reckless” his recent remarks about genetic differences in intelligence among racial groups.

    Nowhere is the word taboo mentioned. Nowhere does it say that Watson or anyone else is prevented from investigating the topic. The objection is to unsubstantiated and reckless claims. And the claims are reckless precisely because they are unsubstantiated. So all Watson has to do is substantiate the claims. But that’s a very tall order and he knows it. Because there is no discernable nexus between race and intelligence. I’m 100% black African and I’ve never in my life perceived that I was cognitively disadvantaged because of it.

    Who are you to tell someone that he or she shouldn’t study it or, if they do, they are “obsessing” about it? What are you so afraid of? We should not be silencing such studies or any mention of them.

    I absolutely encourage you or anyone else to study it, investigate it, conduct experiments in the lab and come back with proof. But don’t come with pseudoscience. Don’t cherrypick data. Do observe the maxim that correlation does not imply causation. In fact Watson made an appeal to genetics, and you agree with Watson even though he presented no genetic evidence. Well then, what he needs to put this to bed is genetic evidence of the intellectual inferiority of black people. You and everyone else who agrees with him can help him out. No one is preventing anyone from going into a lab and producing the evidence. Good luck.

  192. Okechukwu says:
    @TTSSYF

    Of course no one in your wife’s field focuses at all on race and IQ, race realism, and HBD. That’s the whole point of this conversation. It’s not that those topics are without meaning or not interesting.

    Those are all absurd pseudoscientific ideologies that fall apart under minor scrutiny. Science will never respect hypotheses that are so easily refuted and falsified.

    It’s that any mention of them is taboo in today’s society, and you confirm that with your reply.

    It’s taboo because it’s fake. It wouldn’t be taboo if it were real. Rather, it would be triumphant by virtue of the sheer weight of the evidence supporting it. But racist pseudoscience is singularly bereft of evidence. Moreover, as long as one can never assess any individual’s intelligence on the basis of his race or skin color, racist pseudoscience will never establish itself beyond an Internet fringe element, who, by the way, are motivated by factors other than science. Everyone knows what their true motivations are. In fact it’s often presumed that these “true believers” don’t actually believe what they profess since it’s presumed further that no one can be that dumb.

    That’s the whole reason why when someone, such as Watson, dares to say anything about it, he is essentially wiped out of existence.

    What Watson needs to do is present tangible, verifiable and reproducible genetic evidence. No one cares what he believes. No one cares about his anecdotes. The world operates on facts, on evidence.

    Remember this quote from the article:

    Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory revoked the honorary titles held by its longtime leader James D. Watson on Friday, describing as “unsubstantiated and reckless” his recent remarks about genetic differences in intelligence among racial groups.

    Nowhere is the word taboo mentioned. Nowhere does it say that Watson or anyone else is prevented from investigating the topic. The objection is to unsubstantiated and reckless claims. And the claims are reckless precisely because they are unsubstantiated. So all Watson has to do is substantiate the claims. But that’s a very tall order and he knows it. Because there is no discernable nexus between race and intelligence. I’m 100% black African and I’ve never in my life perceived that I was cognitively disadvantaged because of it.

    Who are you to tell someone that he or she shouldn’t study it or, if they do, they are “obsessing” about it? What are you so afraid of? We should not be silencing such studies or any mention of them.

    I absolutely encourage you or anyone else to study it, investigate it, conduct experiments in the lab and come back with proof. But don’t come with pseudoscience. Don’t cherrypick data. Do observe the maxim that correlation does not imply causation. In fact Watson made an appeal to genetics, and you agree with Watson even though he presented no genetic evidence. Well then, what he needs to put this to bed is genetic evidence of the intellectual inferiority of black people. You and everyone else who agrees with him can help him out. No one is preventing anyone from going into a lab and producing the evidence. Good luck.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    , @PhysicistDave
  193. OC says:
    @Okechukwu

    You’re the one who brought up use of cell lines as supposed “evidence” of lack of meaningful distinction.
    Humans wouldn’t be able to reproduce with something having the genetic makeup of HeLa cells, either.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  194. TTSSYF says:
    @Okechukwu

    Of course the word “taboo” is not mentioned. No one, probably not even Harmon, wants to be accused of enforcing a taboo. But it is not necessary to overtly use the term when it is effectively put into action; e.g., when a Nobel prize-winning scientist has his honorary titles revoked based on his mere words. And it’s not up to him to have to prove anything at this point in his life.

    You obviously have a talent for expressing yourself with the written word, and I don’t think you are “cognitively disadvantaged” but rather blinded by what you want to be true rather than what all the empirical evidence suggests is true. In my opinion, you would be better served to keep an open mind about these things and not take it so personally. We’re talking average differences among different groups, not individuals.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  195. Okechukwu says:
    @OC

    You’re the one who brought up use of cell lines as supposed “evidence” of lack of meaningful distinction.

    No. I brought it up to indicate that race is an irrelevant and meaningless concept to scientists doing research at the level of human cells. Animal research, even on relatively closely related species like rats, is an inadequate proxy in predicting human outcomes and responses. But human specimens like Hela have a predictive power encompassing all humans given that humans are virtual carbon copies of each other.

    Humans wouldn’t be able to reproduce with something having the genetic makeup of HeLa cells, either.

    Yet Hela cells are human cells. Funny logic you got going there.

  196. Okechukwu says:
    @TTSSYF

    Of course the word “taboo” is not mentioned. No one, probably not even Harmon, wants to be accused of enforcing a taboo.

    I will agree with you that there is a taboo. Where we disagree is on the reasons why. It would also be taboo to assert that white people are genetically inferior in intelligence. The evidence to support that claim is as strong (or as weak) as the evidence buttressing the claim that black people are genetically inferior in intelligence. In other words, these twin assertions are taboo because they lack even a scintilla of evidentiary support.

    when a Nobel prize-winning scientist has his honorary titles revoked based on his mere words. And it’s not up to him to have to prove anything at this point in his life.

    So you believe winning a Nobel Prize (through trickery in Watson’s case) should exempt a scientist from having to provide scientific proofs to validate blanket, unfounded claims. I would hope that people like you are kept away from science, lest you take us back to the dark ages.

    Let’s imagine that Watson had said that white people are genetically inferior in intelligence. I bet you’d be demanding proof then, wouldn’t you?

    I don’t think you are “cognitively disadvantaged” but rather blinded by what you want to be true rather than what all the empirical evidence suggests is true.

    And yet you people can never produce this great and apparently very elusive “empirical evidence.” I’m actually begging you, pleading with you to present said evidence so that we can put this entire matter to rest, and I will officially prostrate myself at the altar of racist pseudoscience. I swear to you, provide credible and authentic scientific evidence and I will concede that you were right and I was wrong. But remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that some races are more or less intelligent on a genetic level is a staggeringly extraordinary one. If true, it would upend everything we know about human genetics, the human experience and human history. So don’t come at me with Pioneer Fund “data” as proof.

    In my opinion, you would be better served to keep an open mind about these things and not take it so personally.

    It’s a two-way street. Whether or not you are amenable to the notion that black people could have a quantitative genetic advantage over white people in latent intelligence will demonstrate the extent to which your own mind is open or closed.

    We’re talking average differences among different groups, not individuals.

    Everyone is talking about averages. I’m talking about averages. Amy Harmon is talking about averages. When we say that white people are not innately smarter than black people, we mean that white people are not innately smarter than black people *ON AVERAGE*. If we weren’t talking about averages our position would be entirely untenable and indefensible.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    , @TTSSYF
  197. @Anonymous

    Anonymous[372] wrote to me:

    Anyone who believes in the inerrancy of scripture–whether Catholic or Protestant or Jew–must believe in geocentrism.

    Fortunately, almost no one really does. It’s just a game they play, sort of like people who pretend that we have equal justice under the law or that our military are “defending our freedom.”

    My family attended a fundamentalist church when I was a kid, and I puzzled for several years over why none of the adults actually even tried to follow Biblical teachings (turn the other cheek, give all you have to the poor, and all the rest). Of course, it finally dawned on me (better late than never!) that the whole point was to claim to believe in the literal truth of the Bible not to actually believe in the literal truth of the Bible.

    Once I figured it out, I still was not willing to play along, but at least I knew what game was being played.

    Years later, when I was a mature adult, both of my parents separately admitted to me that of course they did not really believe it all. All just a game, a silly hypocritical game.

    No worse I suppose than falsely pretending that government exists of, by, and for the people.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
  198. @HA

    HA wrote to me:

    That’s yet another gross generalization and more projection and retconning by those who fancy themselves as the white knights of science. As O’Neill notes in the above link and elsewhere, there were several other theories of planetary motion at play during Galileo’s time, none of which received the Galileo treatment.

    Ah, HA, and I thought You were one of the sane ones! It seems to be my fate to eternally be overly kind and trusting.

    Look: the Inquisition really did order Galileo not to teach the Copernican system way back in 1616: this was long before he wrote the book that suggested that Urban VIII was “Simplicio” and several years before Simplicio, I mean Urban VIII, even became Pope.

    The argument really was about the science from an early date, and the Church most assuredly tried to restrict Galileo’s freedom long before the Simplicio brouhaha.

    Evil apologists for tyranny nowadays try to ignore this because they would like to pretend that the wrongful imprisonment was an isolated matter due solely to Galileo insulting Simplicio/Barberini. Of course even if the sole issue were Galileo’s rightly humiliating Urban VIII, it would still have been wrongful imprisonment: scientists and everyone else have a right (indeed, a moral obligation!) to mouth off to Popes and the entire eternally corrupt Church hierarchy.

    HA also wrote:

    Things certainly could have turned out more like the Sagans and Degrasse-Tysons are now claiming — I mean, look at how sola scriptura young-earth Biblical-inerrancy types regard Darwin and evolution to this very day — but that’s just not how it played out.

    Yeah, it “played out” as it did because the Church claimed the right to imprison people who said or wrote things the Church did not like. Has the Church ever actually explicitly announced that it was wrong to do that sort of thing, or is it just that if they try it nowadays, we all know that Italy will send in the troops and seize the Vatican?

    HA also wrote:

    As others have noted, given what the modern world has done in the name of Lysenkoism (not to mention what churchmen like Lemaitre and Mendel have managed to do) it’s time to lay to rest the Black Legend mythology surrounding Galileo’s trial once and for all, and this quaint faith-based notion that science needed to be saved from the dastardly designs of the Spanish Inquisition or whatever.

    No one here is defending Unclle Joe Stalin or Lysenko, but it is hardly “the modern world” that is responsible for Lysenkoism: it is Marxism-Leninism. It is also worth noting that Joe Stalin was a student at a Christian seminary: he may have switched parties, but he kept to the well-tested practices of historical Christianity — a bit of torture here, a bit of murder there, etc.

    The good new is that if Christianity is true, then Urban VIII, Bellarmine, and pretty much everyone who has ever served in the Catholic hierarchy (and yes, Lenin, Stalin, and Lysenko too!) are currently writing in unbearable eternal torment in Hell. And, if Aquinas is right, then one of the eternal joys of all of us who end up in Heaven will be to revel in the horrific tortures to which Urban VIII and his cronies are subjected.

    Alas, I am doubtful. But there is always hope!

  199. @Ian M.

    Ian M. asked me:

    You are in high dudgeon about Galileo’s house arrest, and then in the next breath say that Pope Urban VIII should have been murdered?

    Who’s the totalitarian again?

    It is not totalitarian to punish criminals. I also think that very, very nasty things should be done to the pedophiles who have run the Catholic Pedophile Church in recent decades. Of course, our society is so corrupt that almost none have been brought to justice.

    But, hey, just maybe God does exist, in which case they and all those who support them are going to find that eternity is a very long time when it come to Hell.

    Hope springs eternal…

    • Replies: @Ian M.
    , @Ian M.
  200. @Okechukwu

    You’re being disobedient again, son. Remember: you were sent to the corner for lying.

  201. @Okechukwu

    The ill-behaved child wrote:

    When we say that white people are not innately smarter than black people, we mean that white people are not innately smarter than black people *ON AVERAGE*.

    Any evidence for that claim? At all?

    The fact that blacks do score lower on average on IQ tests than whites is evidence for Watson’s view, you know, although it certainly is not conclusive, as Watson himself admits.

    I will tell you that, as Harvard’s David Reich, an expert in genetics (and a liberal), has pointed out, it is rather unlikely that genes that differ within a population will not also differ between populations.

    Not my claim, but Reich’s: if you don’t like it, drop by Harvard and argue with him.

    Now back to the corner with you!

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  202. TTSSYF says:
    @Okechukwu

    I don’t think I’ve heard Watson say it, but research in the field of genetics and IQ strongly suggests that, on average, the IQ of Asians is slightly higher than the IQ of whites, and the IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is, on average, higher than that of Asians. I have no reason to take offense or dispute this. Do you?

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  203. TTSSYF says:
    @PhysicistDave

    I was raised in a conventional Protestant church, but the central tenet — that one must believe that Jesus was the son of God, who died for our sins, in order to have salvation and everlasting life — never made sense to me. I went through the motions and was baptized at age 14 when my mother said it was time to walk down the aisle at the end of the service and proclaim my belief in Jesus.

    When I went to college, I told myself I was going to throw out all of my religious baggage and add it back only as I convinced myself of it. I have never added back that central tenet of Christianity. Instead, I majored in a hard science and have surrounded myself with highly intelligent, rational (and, I should add, decent, fair-minded, and generous) people for most of my career. I feel sure my mother was like your parents. It was all an act, but a well-intended one, to ground us in morality and help surround us with friends from good families and keep us out of trouble.

    Another of my friends, whose IQ, by the way (Okechukwu), likely surpasses mine by 20 points or more, has dedicated her entire life by working for next to nothing for a large, Protestant church. It’s baffling to me how someone of such high intelligence, who is capable of doing just about anything, can instead choose to make a career out of religion. Who was it who said some things are so inane that only highly intelligent people can believe them?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  204. Ian M. says:
    @PhysicistDave

    It is not totalitarian to punish criminals.

    It is to punish criminals with punishments that far exceed the crime.

    Executing someone for having put someone under house arrest is a punishment that far exceeds the crime.

    I wouldn’t want to be your enemy.

  205. Ian M. says:
    @PhysicistDave

    It is not totalitarian to punish criminals.

    It is to punish criminals with punishments that far exceed the crime.

    Executing someone for having put someone under house arrest is a punishment that far exceeds the crime.

    I wouldn’t want to be your enemy.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  206. Okechukwu says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Any evidence for that claim? At all?

    Evidence for what claim? The claim that those who reject white supremacy vis-a-vis black people reject it on the basis that whites are not superior on average? Do you really think that it’s possible to reject white supremacy on the basis that whites are superior on average but are nevertheless not superior? You might want to put your alleged engineering background to work and think more clearly and analytically.

    Or is it your contention that I need to provide evidence that whites are not superior to blacks on average? Well, where is your evidence that they are? IQ? Pfff…don’t make me laugh. We need genetic evidence. Do you have it? I didn’t think so. So shut up.

    The fact that blacks do score lower on average on IQ tests than whites is evidence for Watson’s view, you know, although it certainly is not conclusive, as Watson himself admits.

    This is arguably the stupidest talking point in the repertoire of racist pseudoscience. If group IQ differences evidenced genetic inferiority or superiority in intelligence the world would be a mishmash of inferior and superior groups, including white/white groups in the USA and Europe. Or black/white groups where blacks have a higher IQ average. So are Northern white Americans genetically superior to Southern white Americans? Are Nigerian Americans genetically superior to white Americans? Are Northern Europeans, who never developed a sophisticated ancient civilization or writing, genetically superior to Southern Europeans who did?

    I will tell you that, as Harvard’s David Reich, an expert in genetics (and a liberal), has pointed out, it is rather unlikely that genes that differ within a population will not also differ between populations.

    So your genes differ from your brother’s and that makes you superior? Or does it make you inferior? Where does Reich state that between population genetic variation necessarily means that one or the other has increased or decreased potential for intelligence? The only thing we know for certain is that every population group has intelligence. Everything else is conjecture and wishful thinking.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  207. Okechukwu says:
    @TTSSYF

    research in the field of genetics and IQ strongly suggests blah blah blah

    LOL. Links please.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
  208. @TTSSYF

    TTSSYF wrote to me:

    When I went to college, I told myself I was going to throw out all of my religious baggage and add it back only as I convinced myself of it. I have never added back that central tenet of Christianity. Instead, I majored in a hard science and have surrounded myself with highly intelligent, rational (and, I should add, decent, fair-minded, and generous) people for most of my career. I feel sure my mother was like your parents. It was all an act, but a well-intended one, to ground us in morality and help surround us with friends from good families and keep us out of trouble.

    Yeah, our experiences were, it seems, similar, except that I never agreed to “walk down the aisle.”

    Most of the people at our church were, by the way, pretty nice people, honest, hard-working citizens. And, I had a number of friends my age at the church who, along with me, asked some interesting questions of the adults. We had one crazy Sunday-school teacher who wanted to put all Catholics in jail (he had been Catholic himself), and we spent the year trying to explain to him why you could not do that in America. But, most of the other teachers were relatively sane people, if you strip away their belief in the Virgin Birth, etc.

    I wish most of them well; indeed, most Americans would do well to emulate those people in many ways. But they were hypocrites in their claim to believe everything in the Bible.

    By the way, did you ever consider just refusing to “walk down the aisle” and to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior? For me, it would have been like eating my own feces: I simply couldn’t have done it. I never have understood how so many of my peers did it.

    All the best,

    Dave

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
  209. @Ian M.

    Ian M. wrote to me:

    [Dave] It is not totalitarian to punish criminals.

    [Ian] It is to punish criminals with punishments that far exceed the crime.

    Realistically, it would have been the only way to stop this criminal. There was no possibility of stopping Barberini’s (AKA “Urban VIII’s”) crime spree except by killing him. I.e., there was quite obviously no chance of bringing Barberini to justice in the normal criminal-justice system.

    If a burglar breaks in to your house, and the only way to stop him is to shoot him dead, you are legally entitled to do so. It is, after all, his fault (and Barberini’s fault in the seventeenth-century case) that the situation exists at all. That’s the law.

    Yes, a case can bee made that the appropriate punishment for Urban VIII would just have been life imprisonment (that being what he subjected Galileo to), though of course he would also owe restitution to Galileo. I could accept that. But, it just wasn’t possible. Assassination was the only option, and it was justified.

    I would also have accepted life imprisonment for Hitler had he survived WW II. But, during the war, pursuing normal judicial process against him was not an option, and therefore the assassination attempts were more than justified.

    Talking sensibly about Barberini’s crime and the appropriate punishment is, unfortunately, clouded by the fact that he was “Pope,” and that influences many people who revere power even among those who are not Catholics.

    Of course, the crimes of the Church in the seventeenth century were hardly limited to Galileo! We can be sure that Barberini deserved far more punishment than we have discussed.

  210. @Okechukwu

    The out-of-control child wrote to me:

    Evidence for what claim?

    The claim by you that I quoted:

    we mean that white people are not innately smarter than black people *ON AVERAGE*.

    How do you know that is true (” white people are not innately smarter than black people *ON AVERAGE*”)?

    Maybe black people are innately smarter than white people on average. Maybe white people are innately smarter than black people on average. Maybe white people and black people have exactly the same innate intelligence on average (this is statistically unlikely, by the way, but it is logically possible).

    You claim:

    white people are not innately smarter than black people *ON AVERAGE*

    Well, that might be true. It might not be true. What evidence do you have that it is true?

    The bad little boy also wrote:

    The claim that those who reject white supremacy vis-a-vis black people reject it on the basis that whites are not superior on average? Do you really think that it’s possible to reject white supremacy on the basis that whites are superior on average but are nevertheless not superior? You might want to put your alleged engineering background to work and think more clearly and analytically.

    Is that supposed to be English?

    The spoiled child also wrote:

    This is arguably the stupidest talking point in the repertoire of racist pseudoscience. If group IQ differences evidenced genetic inferiority or superiority in intelligence the world would be a mishmash of inferior and superior groups, including white/white groups in the USA and Europe. Or black/white groups where blacks have a higher IQ average. So are Northern white Americans genetically superior to Southern white Americans? Are Nigerian Americans genetically superior to white Americans? Are Northern Europeans, who never developed a sophisticated ancient civilization or writing, genetically superior to Southern Europeans who did?

    The answer to your questions is “yeah, might be or might not be” for each question.

    The little bad boy also wrote:

    So your genes differ from your brother’s and that makes you superior? Or does it make you inferior? Where does Reich state that between population genetic variation necessarily means that one or the other has increased or decreased potential for intelligence?

    In my vision, I am certainly inferior to my brothers’ (and this is known to be genetic). In intelligence, within measurement errors, we seem to be comparable. In honesty, I have proven to be much more honest, though I do not know if this is genetic.

    As to Dave Reich, here, in the NYT (!) in fact, is where Reich endorses Watson’s basic claim:

    they start with the accurate observation that many academics are implausibly denying the possibility of average genetic differences among human populations…

    Furthermore, Reich specifically links this to the issue of differences in intelligence among different human populations:

    Is performance on an intelligence test or the number of years of school a person attends shaped by the way a person is brought up? Of course. But does it measure something having to do with some aspect of behavior or cognition? Almost certainly. And since all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations (because the frequencies of genetic variations are rarely exactly the same across populations), the genetic influences on behavior and cognition will differ across populations, too.[emphasis added]

    He furthermore refutes the claims that the differences will be negligible:

    You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true.

    He concludes by posing the conundrum that the science he presents poses for his fellow liberals:

    So how should we prepare for the likelihood that in the coming years, genetic studies will show that many traits are influenced by genetic variations, and that these traits will differ on average across human populations? It will be impossible — indeed, anti-scientific, foolish and absurd — to deny those differences.[emphasis added]

    Reich does indeed take some swipes at Watson, Nick Wade, and Harpending for jumping the gun in claiming more certainty than exists for exactly what the ultimate results will be. I think it is fair for Reich to make that point (and I have made it repeatedly myself), though I think he could have been a bit kinder in making the point.

    But what I have quoted from Professor David Reich of Harvard University is in fact the accepted state of the science among competent scientists: “And since all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations (because the frequencies of genetic variations are rarely exactly the same across populations), the genetic influences on behavior and cognition will differ across populations, too.” [emphasis added]

    A quick test to see if any scientist is honest: ask him if he is sure that this statement by Reich is false.

    You don’t like all this? Fine — take a trip to Boston and picket Harvard. Don’t blame me.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  211. @PhysicistDave

    It would be presumptuous for me to even hint at say, Greenwich Mean Teaching Assistant, but that Beach Boys bit was to have been the punch line for a bloated (guessing it would have been about a 200 word salad) self-follow up hinted at in the original post. I’m glad that you were able to get past the wacky lead up to VN’s pellucid prose.

  212. TTSSYF says:
    @PhysicistDave

    No, I wasn’t that mature or confident at 14. But when I went to college and was surrounded by many of those same friends and new ones just like them, I resisted it at every turn…even though they and various adults were constantly trying to save my soul with one-on-one earnest conversations. Now, when we get together, they leave me alone.

  213. Okechukwu says:
    @PhysicistDave

    The claim by you that I quoted:

    You have the burden of proof, Mr. keyboard “scientist.” There is absolutely no credible evidence that whites are innately smarter than blacks. None. If white intellectual superiority over blacks was as real as white nationalist dimwits believe, there would be no controversy. There would be no taboo associated with the idea. It’s taboo because it’s fake. Conversely, if you were to propose that humans are smarter than chimpanzees, that notion would not be taboo because it’s real.

    As to Dave Reich, here, in the NYT (!) in fact, is where Reich endorses Watson’s basic claim:

    You lie! Reich specifically targets Watson for particular scorn.

    Another high-profile example is James Watson, the scientist who in 1953 co-discovered the structure of DNA, and who was forced to retire as head of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories in 2007 after he stated in an interview — without any scientific evidence — that research has suggested that genetic factors contribute to lower intelligence in Africans than in Europeans.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

    Furthermore, Reich specifically links this to the issue of differences in intelligence among different human populations:

    And the people at the top of that cognitive pyramid could very well be black Africans. I see nothing in Reich’s article that precludes that possibility. After all, Africa houses most of our human genetic endowment. In fact non-Africans are mere subsets of African variation. So it’s entirely plausible that the cognitive elite of humanity is in Africa.

    He furthermore refutes the claims that the differences will be negligible:

    Being at Harvard and writing for the NYT doesn’t accord Reich any special cachet or credibility. His article is all over the place. It is a polemic against your beloved racist pseudoscience while at the same time it strawman’s other scientists as allegedly refusing to acknowledge variability between different populations, which of course is absurd. Reich’s is a scattershot and disingenuous piece that finds bogeymen where there are none, and makes assumptions about what future science will discover with no supporting evidence to back those assumptions up.

    But what I have quoted from Professor David Reich of Harvard University is in fact the accepted state of the science among competent scientists:

    LOL. Yet 67 of Reich’s peers published an open letter in rebuttal.

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-genetics-david-reich#.spzPpLXRL

    These scientists do not engage the topic of racial differences in intelligence not because they’re afraid, but because there’s nothing there. It’s a waste of time and resources.

    A quick test to see if any scientist is honest: ask him if he is sure that this statement by Reich is false.

    The honest scientist will ask for evidence. This is where people of your ideological persuasion always trip up. It’s not possible in the natural world for you to turn your hopes, dreams and desires into concrete scientific evidence.

  214. TTSSYF says:
    @Okechukwu

    And this reply is why I have little hope for the races living together in any kind of harmony. We can witness the same events, read the same research articles, etc., and still reach totally different conclusions. I recognized this early on, and it’s why I chose the profession I did, where any blacks who come into my world are an extreme minority and I can avoid their world (except on TV). I prefer to be around people who think like I do and not like you do.

    We need to admit to irreconcilable differences and go our separate ways as in an amicable divorce. It’s like Dave Mason said: There ain’t no good guy, there ain’t no bad guy, there’s only you and me and we just disagree. We can start by self-sorting into red and blue states and strengthening federalism.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  215. @Okechukwu

    The nasty little liar wrote to me:

    You have the burden of proof, Mr. keyboard “scientist.” There is absolutely no credible evidence that whites are innately smarter than blacks.

    I’m not making any claim. I don’t know that blacks are innately smarter than whites or vice versa.

    You are the one making a claim: that you know that there is no innate difference in intelligence between blacks and whites. The null hypothesis is still a claim. You have zero evidence to back it up. And, as Reich says explicitly, it is very, very unlikely in a statistical sense that you are correct:

    Is performance on an intelligence test or the number of years of school a person attends shaped by the way a person is brought up? Of course. But does it measure something having to do with some aspect of behavior or cognition? Almost certainly. And since all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations (because the frequencies of genetic variations are rarely exactly the same across populations), the genetic influences on behavior and cognition will differ across populations, too.[emphasis added]

    That is just the truth.

    Two different populations are likely to have differences in innate genetic potential for intelligence.

    Live with it, liar.

    The liar also wrote:

    [Dave]As to Dave Reich, here, in the NYT (!) in fact, is where Reich endorses Watson’s basic claim

    [The Liar]You lie! Reich specifically targets Watson for particular scorn.

    Well, liar, if you were capable of reading, you’d note that I pointed out that Reich does indeed criticize Watson for being too blunt and claiming too high a degree of certainty, and that I agree with Reich on the latter.

    However, the point I quoted from Reich, that two different populations are likely to differ in their genetic potential for intelligence is indeed Watson’s key point, a point that any competent and honest scientist must concede.

    Obviously, Reich is also criticizing Watson partly in the (vain) hope that it will protect Reeich himself from being “Watsonned” as a result of Reich telling the truth that two different populations are likely to differ in their genetic potential for intelligence. If you read the comments on the NYT article and do some googling, you will find out that of course this strategy failed: Reich is now widely hated for having told the truth.

    The liar also wrote:

    And the people at the top of that cognitive pyramid could very well be black Africans. I see nothing in Reich’s article that precludes that possibility. After all, Africa houses most of our human genetic endowment. In fact non-Africans are mere subsets of African variation. So it’s entirely plausible that the cognitive elite of humanity is in Africa.

    Yes, I keep trying to tell you that: Africans could indeed end up being the genetic cognitive elite. But you are so focused on denouncing people as racists, you can’t read what I have written and accept that I agree with you on that!

    Statistically speaking, it is unlikely: obviously, it would be a surprise if a group that scores lower on IQ tests actually has a higher genetic potential for intelligence. But, yes, it could happen.

    By the way, the most likely way this could happen is if it turns out that black folks have enough sense that they simply do not take low-stakes IQ tests seriously, whereas white folks stress out over tests that really are personally irrelevant. Wouldn’t surprise me if that turns out to be true. There are experiments that could be done to test this hypothesis that the IQ scores really reveal not intelligence but motivation, and I would like to see that hypothesis carefully tested.

    The liar also wrote:

    Being at Harvard and writing for the NYT doesn’t accord Reich any special cachet or credibility. His article is all over the place. It is a polemic against your beloved racist pseudoscience while at the same time it strawman’s other scientists as allegedly refusing to acknowledge variability between different populations, which of course is absurd.

    Yes, he’s trying to tell the truth but also trying to protect himself against being “Watsonned.” Sad he feels he has to do that, isn’t it?

    The liar said:

    Yet 67 of Reich’s peers published an open letter in rebuttal

    Sad how ideology causes even professionals to lie, isn’t it? The Soviets forced a lot of geneticists to lie (Lysenkoism), and now the same thing is happening here. Just like when the Nazis got dozens of physicists to denounce Einstein’s “Jewish” physics: as Einstein rightly said, if they had been correct, just one rebuttal would have sufficed.

    Same with Reich: if he were wrong, they did not need 67: one would have sufficed.

    Look: anyone who understood high-school bio and who has an IQ above room temperature can understand that Reich is right. You can’t. Not my problem. Again, stop whining to me and go and picket Reich’s office at Harvard.

    Why should the antifas out here in California have all the fun? Time for the antifas to wreak havoc on the “racists” and “fascists” at Harvard, don’t you think??

  216. @Okechukwu

    Okechukwu wrote:

    Yet 67 of Reich’s peers published an open letter in rebuttal.

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-genetics-david-reich#.spzPpLXRL

    I urge anyone interested in the Watson debate to read through the list of signees of this weird screed our friend links to: I count five scientists among the 67 signees (I am assuming that everyone knows that, say, anthropology is not a science).

    67 sounds like a large number, until you realize that they obviously could not find many actual scientists to lie about Dave Reich.

    It is also revealing to see how the 67 morons go on and on about Reich’s mis-use of the concept of “race” despite the fact that Reich explicitly says:

    It is true that race is a social construct.

    Reich in fact goes to a great deal of trouble, again and again, to refer to “populations” — which, hopefully, everyone agrees exist! — rather than races.

    But, of course, this does him no good with the lying morons: they just go ahead and slander Reich, claiming that he misused the concept of “race” even though he studiously avoided using that concept and instead refers to “populations.”

    And, this shows what is really going on with Jim Watson. Yeah, Watson was too blunt and artless in how he phrased his point. But Reich was very careful — and he still got denounced by 67 academic morons.

    Tell the truth carefully and precisely and the Red Guards will still nail you.

    But the data is coming. In the end, truth will out.

  217. Okechukwu says:
    @TTSSYF

    And this reply is why I have little hope for the races living together in any kind of harmony.

    What you actually mean is that it’s impossible for white nationalists to live together in harmony with anyone.

    We can witness the same events, read the same research articles, etc., and still reach totally different conclusions.

    Who’s we? Those who debunk and pick apart your phony “research articles” are overwhelmingly white. Watson’s detractors are overwhelmingly white. Those opposed to racist pseudoscience generally are overwhelmingly white. Anti-racists are overwhelmingly white. And SJW’s are overwhelmingly white.

    I prefer to be around people who think like I do and not like you do.

    Good for you. There are some nice uninhabited islands you and likeminded folks can move to.

    We can start by self-sorting into red and blue states and strengthening federalism.

    What you need is an island, because in every red state you’ll find white people who are hostile to your ideology. What’s more, conservativism and Republicanism don’t necessarily connote racism. I know some hardcore rightwing red state Republicans who are intensely anti-racist.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?