|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Nov 29, 2014 14:31:16 GMT
Couldn't happen now , could it?
Oh yes it could!
Oh yes it has!
Possibly the most influential scientific orthodoxy today (because it is an orthodoxy that opens so many doors to so much treasure) is the AGW orthodoxy, and indeed we have seen renowned scientists shunned by the 'scientific community' for speaking out against that orthodoxy
But one of the most pr-eminent scientists of the 20C has also suffered the same fate
Dr James Watson the joint discoverer of the structure of DNA (some believe this to be the greatest scientific discovery of the 20C)is reported as having fallen on hard times and is about to sell his Nobel Prize medal(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/11257066/James-Watson-to-sell-Nobel-prize-medal-he-won-for-double-helix-discovery.html)
Nothing to do with AGW, but that even more sacrosanct subject, race He made an hypothesis that the black races are, on average of lower intelligence than other races
For that hypothesis he has lost jobs and been sacked from the boards of companies
How about you? Do you believe that science should be free to make any reasonable hypothesis, or do you side with the Catholic Dogs of God that believed in punishing scientists that did not accord with the received scientific wisdom?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 29, 2014 15:13:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Nov 29, 2014 16:35:03 GMT
What do you find unscientific? What was the methodology of the tests that he referred to and how were they unscientific?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 29, 2014 16:56:23 GMT
He's going by hearsay, and the (unattributed) testimony of those who have to deal with black employees.
If he has, himself, tested his 'hypothesis' in any way at all, he has yet to tell us what tests he devised, what methodology he used, and what results were obtained.
In the absence of any information from the man himself about any of this, I think unscientific is the best word to use for his claims.
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Nov 29, 2014 17:52:02 GMT
How do you know? Do you know if he studied the test results in depth or even contributed toward the tests? and the (unattributed) testimony of those who have to deal with black employees.Do scientists always quote their attributions in conversation then? If he has, himself, tested his 'hypothesis' in any way at all, he has yet to tell us what tests he devised, what methodology he used, and what results were obtained. There we are IF You do not know In the absence of such knowledge you can hardly accuse him of being 'unscientific'. or rather your accusations are shallow and without merit In the absence of any information from the man himself about any of this, I think unscientific is the best word to use for his claims. No, 'unscientific' is exactly the wrong word in view of your ignorance. He might have been very scientific fir all you (or I )know Your judgement reflects your prejudices rather than any concern for 'science'
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 29, 2014 18:03:33 GMT
Sorry cleefy, you really are floundering here. Do you know if he studied the test results in depth or even contributed toward the tests? What I do know is that he has produced no evidence at all that he has done any research on his own account. Nor has he directed us to specific studies carried out by others, which he has studied in depth.If he'd done any of these things, it would be very much in his own interest to publicise it as widely as possible. But he has said...nothing.
|
|
|
Post by saltANDpepper on Nov 29, 2014 18:30:33 GMT
That's why he lost his job then. Made up stuff about forrinors. Couldn't provide any evidence (surprise!).
Intellectual dishonesty of the very worst kind.
Fortunately no member here would behave in such a dishonest way.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 29, 2014 18:38:42 GMT
We certainly don't need to "make up stuff" about Immigrant pedophile rings, their honour killings, their FGM, their beheadings and blowing up of public transport, do we? Is this the behaviour of the brightest and the best, by the way?
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Nov 29, 2014 19:37:37 GMT
What I do know is that he has produced no evidence at all that he has done any research on his own account. Really? Then you have studied al of his work? Nor has he directed us to specific studies carried out by others, which he has studied in depth.Directed us? You mean you have no idea what he has done? A very sound basis indeed to make your 'unscientific' judgement upon If he'd done any of these things, it would be very much in his own interest to publicise it as widely as possible. But he has said...nothing. You mean you are an avid reader, nay an expert upon , science papers on genetics and have studied all of Mr Watson's output in detail?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 29, 2014 20:41:22 GMT
Well cleefy, if he has said anything at all on this topic apart from those unguarded remarks in a newspaper interview which were so damaging to his career, I am sure you will be able to post a link.
|
|
|
Post by Jimmynodata on Nov 29, 2014 21:06:00 GMT
I am sure you will be able to post a link.
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Nov 30, 2014 8:35:19 GMT
Well cleefy, if he has said anything at all on this topic apart from those unguarded remarks in a newspaper interview which were so damaging to his career, I am sure you will be able to post a link. It is to you to support your contention that in this case he is unscientific Unscientific he may be, but you cannot support your prejudice
|
|
|
Post by Rosalind Franklin on Nov 30, 2014 11:39:20 GMT
Just like James Watson I too have an hypothesis:
The poster known as "cleefy" is of (much) lower intelligence than every other member here.
Unfortunately I cannot provide you with any research to back up this hypothesis.
But don't worry, I assure you that it is all very scinetific.
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Nov 30, 2014 14:32:16 GMT
Just like James Watson I too have an hypothesis: The poster known as "cleefy" is of (much) lower intelligence than every other member here. Unfortunately I cannot provide you with any research to back up this hypothesis. But don't worry, I assure you that it is all very scinetific. The bases of science are hyphotheses The essence of empirical science is the attempted rejection of an hypothesis based upon evidential investigation I am quite happy with your hypothesis Now use the scientific method in an attempt to falsify it!
|
|
|
Post by Ros on Nov 30, 2014 18:12:07 GMT
Just like James Watson I too have an hypothesis: The poster known as "cleefy" is of (much) lower intelligence than every other member here. Unfortunately I cannot provide you with any research to back up this hypothesis. But don't worry, I assure you that it is all very scinetific. The bases of science are hyphotheses The essence of empirical science is the attempted rejection of an hypothesis based upon evidential investigation I am quite happy with your hypothesis Now use the scientific method in an attempt to falsify it! We will leave it there. We are both happy.Nothing more to be said or done!
|
|