James Watson claims Africans are less intelligent than Westerners
by MikeGeneSome time ago, I warned that James Watson was a modern day eugenicist.
He has now taken it a step further:
One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
It is undisputed that Jim Watson is racist. Sooner or later in his talks it will become clear that he not only looks down on Africans. Chinese, woman and obese people are just a few more of his favorite targets.
In fact, some of his statements allow one to argue that he does indeed favor that women should be allowed to abort fetuses for a variety of reasons, thus moving closer to a position of eugenics.
However, unless Jim Watson advocates selective breeding to remove the genetic inferiority he perceives among 'Africans', he should not be called a eugenicist based on the quoted statement.
Comment by hrun — October 16, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
October 16th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Either I have poor reading skills or the text of this post changed in the past hour. My guess is poor reading skills.
Comment by hrun — October 16, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 1:01 am
I don't see why this is deemed such a radical observation. If something like Darwinism is true then level of intelligence is something that is only driven by selection pressure and i'm willing to wager that high maths aptitude and the like wont do you much good on the African savanna.
Why do people get up in arms when a Darwinist says something like this ?
It is something that follows from the claims of an a-telic evolutionary process.
Without some conception of the dignity of all human beings and their value, such as is provided by concepts like the Imago Dei, this sort of thinking is perfectly reasonable. It isn't like an a-telic Darwinist account of life can provide such a thing and only a fool would expect it to be able too.
If anything we should applaud James Watson for taking his Darwinism seriously. Such honest is refreshing.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 17, 2007 @ 1:01 am
October 17th, 2007 at 2:26 am
Forgive me for being a cynic, but both the posters before me and Watson are villains on this issue. You see, the posters before are cowardly and quick to dismiss what is actually a very well-evidenced finding on Watson's part. There are statistical differences in intelligence between races. Why is it so inconceivable that with differences in bone structure, size, muscle attachments, susceptibilities to disease, melanin content, and texture of hair and skin that there might be some differences in cognition as well? Both intelligence-correlated tests and overall academic achievement bear out the statement.
On the other hand, who give a crap? Statistics won't tell you anything about an individual you meet. The irrationality of our programs in Africa is not because of some IQ divide, but because we steal money from people here to spend overseas. Let everyone be equal, truly equal under the law. Stop the handouts and entitlements. Treat each person you meet as an individual, and race means nothing, whether there be statistical variations or not. Let people lose or gain according to their ability and effort, and it will all sort itself out. In our governments, in ourselves, we should be truly colorblind. Watson's statement is a mere factoid, a curious piece of data that ought be meaningless in our interactions with our fellow man. It is unnecessary, and further, it perpetuates collectivist thinking over the vilest and most arbitrary of lines.
I've no doubt that Watson is a racist, it's hardly uncommon for people of his age, and true arguments can be used to encourage hatred, rather more effectively than lies. But we will not defeat racism by denying fact or by accusation and censure. Racism will be defeated only when we shrug off the yoke of collectivist thinking and treat each person as an individual. No doubt I will be accused of racism for not dismissing his claims. But that we don't like facts doesn't make them less factual. Do a little research, guys, before you flame me. Or not. Those obsessed with equality of outcome can be just as intolerant as those obsessed with racial superiority.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 17, 2007 @ 2:26 am
October 17th, 2007 at 3:12 am
thesciphishow wrote:
SciPhi,
If you think that Africa is one large savanna, then a bit of remedial geographic training is in order.
What makes Watson's statements objectionable is that they are clearly unsupported by science, and are thus revealed to be mere prejudice on his part.
It's not that inter-group differences in intelligence are impossible, but rather that the evidence shows that if they exist at all, they are small. Far too small to warrant this:
A slight left shift — at most — in the African bell curve wouldn't come close to invalidating our social policies toward Africa. And Watson, of all people, should understand how hopelessly unscientific it is to say that "people who have to deal with black employees find this [the idea of equal intelligence] not true".
Comment by keiths — October 17, 2007 @ 3:12 am
October 17th, 2007 at 3:26 am
This is not true. As the most basic biology text book will tell you - the phenotype (and that includes behaviour and intelligence) is a product of heriditary factors and environment - and environment includes culture. If Caucasians do better than others in some types of IQ tests (and I have no idea if they do) it could equally be down to culture or something as simple as better nutritution during development - who knows?
Comment by Mark Frank — October 17, 2007 @ 3:26 am
October 17th, 2007 at 4:34 am
Did he show that second or third generation blacks in the US with a similar social background as white americans still perform less on IQ tests? Otherwise it may be just as the cancer rates of Japanese that quickly reach 'normal' levels when on a US 'diet': not genetic. Also, IQ tests are notoriously based on our western perception on intelligence and how we learn.
Comment by AdR — October 17, 2007 @ 4:34 am
October 17th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Because so far there has been no reliable evidence that this is actually true.
Comment by hrun — October 17, 2007 @ 9:45 am
October 17th, 2007 at 10:20 am
And sexist. In particular, he denigrated the scientific contributions of Rosalind Franklin, even though his own work in resolving the structure of DNA crucially depended upon her efforts of many years. Apparently, he thought she should have done something with her hair (which happened to often be found inside a crystallograph, i.e. an x-ray diffraction device).
Watson is an excellent example of how intelligence does not translate to wisdom, or how knowledge in one field may not indicate knowledge in another.
History indicates that far, far more has been taken from Africa than given.
Comment by Zachriel — October 17, 2007 @ 10:20 am
October 17th, 2007 at 11:31 am
A few days ago when the "science must destroy religion" line was reported from the latest New Atheist gathering, I asked how "science" can do that - and whether it could destroy, among other things, racism.
Naturally, seeing this report so soon is giving me a chuckle.
What I'm noticing is that people are giving great reasons to reject Watson's ideas: Calling the data inconclusive, pointing out that environment certainly has an effect on intelligence, etc. Good stuff, I agree with all of it. Every human life has value, and science indicates that both the present and past present fantastic opportunities to overcome any hurdle, real or perceived.
That's all well and good. But the fact remains that if Watson is correct that, all other factors being equal, there's a starting genetic difference in intelligence between (say) blacks and asians, that's pretty much that. Science backs Watson's claim. And science doesn't demand Watson care about environmental, educational, or other potential mitigating factors. It can't even judge Watson's policy desires - whatever those are - to be correct or incorrect. All it can do is provide data for him to refer to, and the data can be accepted by people who both see it as requiring vastly different responses, if any, according to their philosophies.
I only bring this up to point out the obvious: Science can defeat no broad philosophy or theology. In fact, it can't do much of anything but supply data, even data in context. It's like ammunition: Hardly of value unless you have a gun to put it in. And the same ammo can fit in a lot of different guns.
Comment by nullasalus — October 17, 2007 @ 11:31 am
October 17th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 17, 2007 @ 11:49 am
October 17th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
hrun
That doesn't concern Watson. He says he is fairly certain that the genetic basis for intelligence will be discovered within the next ten years.
Comment by chunkdz — October 17, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
keiths wrote:
The mental powers of the higher animals do not differ in kind, though greatly in degree, from the corresponding powers of man, especially of the lower and barbarous races; and it would appear that even their taste for the beautiful is not widely different from that of the Quadrumana.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 17, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
That's some quote angryoldfatman.
Comment by Bradford — October 17, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
I'm not dismissing it at all. It wouldn't worry me either way if it was true or not, human beings are not ranked by worthiness by such functional criteria.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 17, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I am aware it is not, but you are simply nit picking.
Watson disagrees with you and plenty of others do. I don't see why you find them objectionable though. They seem to be consistent with your worldview. Even if the comments themselves are mistaken, the general attitude they embody towards other human beings is inline with a strict naturalism about the universe.
No you are right there. The general idiocy of them as a whole is more than enough to do that.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 17, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
It could be down to the nature of the test as well. You are missing the point I think.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 17, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Nobody gripes when others invoke science in such a misleading fashion ?
Dawkins, Dennet and others misuse science at least this much all the time, but there is not a peep.
At least Watsons claims could in theory be evidenced, which is more than can be said for the ravings of the others.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 17, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
thesciphishow wrote:
Not at all. Your "argument" was predicated on that falsehood.
Because they represent the abandonment of science and the embrace of mindless prejudice.
Hardly. Naturalism is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Comment by keiths — October 17, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Not even slightly.
Actually the truth of the claims is disputed, but that is neither here nor there. What is illustrated in its stark ugliness is where functionalist accounts of human worth lead.
Tell that to your co-religionists.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 17, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
This bit of news suggests that Africans were more intelligent than non-Africans at one point.
That said, I fail to see how the research mentioned at the link does anything to damage seriously the hypothesis of an 'explosive' appearance (relative to evolutionary timescales) in both the range and qualitative aspects of modern human behavior occurring circa 50,000 years ago, especially in light of this bit:
.[Emphasis added]
Comment by stunney — October 17, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 9:31 am
If Darwin wrote it in a supposedly scientific text, is it science?
Here's another one, this time from a biology textbook.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 18, 2007 @ 9:31 am
October 18th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Hi All,
Apparently, the London's Science Museum has cancelled a sold out lecture in response to Watson stating his opinion. link
Are we going to hear outrage over this apparent assault on James Watson's academic freedom? Is it appropriate to punish those who present their scientific ideas even if the ideas are controversial?
BTW, I hope everyone can figure out I am neither supporting nor condemning Watson's opinion here. My focus is about the limits, or lack thereof, in having scientific opinions with philosophical implications.
Maybe we can compare it to the reaction of this SMU conference. Note that the SMU conference happened, it looks like Watson's lecture will not.
————————————————————————————————————————-
"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 18, 2007 @ 9:44 am
October 18th, 2007 at 9:54 am
I wonder if Watson would include something like this in his lecture:
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 18, 2007 @ 9:54 am
October 18th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Of course, notions of racial superiority used as a justification for colonization and subjugation long predate Darwin, gripping Western Civilization throughout the Ages of Exploration and Imperialism.
The London's Science Museum has academic freedom as well. Watson had his say"”amplified far more than his comments deserved.
A gross perversion of Mendel's Theory of Inheritance.
Comment by Zachriel — October 18, 2007 @ 11:25 am
October 18th, 2007 at 11:26 am
LOL!!! This whole bruhaha is really quite humorous. If for nothing else but the revealed political prejudices of the scientific community that cannot be scientifically justified but are emotionally proclaimed anyway.
Watson has long been a notorious bigot. A personality problem 'everybody who is anybody' has known about for decades. SciPhi is correct when he notes that the political implications of what Watson said are irrelevant despite the fact that empirical evidence demonstrates differences between people. So does simple observation.
I see over at ScienceBlogs that there's a lot of knee-jerk reaction and denouncing of Watson for his 'racism', but not much dispassionate analysis of the evidence. Would they be so up in arms if Watson were to announce that Asians are the most intelligent race of humans on the planet, using the very same evidence?
The reactionaries over at ScienceBlogs (and at least one here) seem to want to ignore the empirical evidence of a range of human abilities across the board according to all measures we've devised. They want to insist that all groups of humans display precisely the same range, as if they need some arguably 'scientific' evidence to support their rejection of bigotry.
Sociopolitical valuation of human beings doesn't have to be scientifically justified. They don't need to deny the value-neutrality of biological theory in order to justify a commitment to equality of value and socially extended opportunity.
That such valuation is an artifact of Judeo-Christian principles (in defiance of 'natural' group psychology) is what motivates this, I suspect. They just don't want to claim any superiority of such 'spiritual' principles over 'natural' biiological inheritance.
Comment by Joy — October 18, 2007 @ 11:26 am
October 18th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Charles:
It certainly can. You steal from me. I steal from you to get it back, or someone else does it for me.
Comment by Lurker — October 18, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Hi Zachriel,
The second quote you attributed to me isn't anything I said.
To the first quote you said…
Here is the event description…
"In his new book, Avoid Boring People and other lessons from a life in science, James D. Watson looks back on his extraordinary and varied career "“ from its beginnings as a schoolboy in Chicago's South Side to the day he left Harvard almost 50 years later, world-renowned as the co-discoverer of DNA - and considers the lessons he has learnt along the way.
…
Join us this evening at the Science Museum's IMAX Theatre to hear Dr Watson talk about the lessons he has learned from a life in science.
Dr Watson will sign copies of his book afterwards."
This sold out event was cancelled yesterday (was scheduled for tomorrow).
It is obvious the event's sponsers wanted to clearly and loudly distance themselves from certain opinions even though those opinions weren't the subject of the lecture.
You might feel it is perfectly alright to cancel lectures like the one at SMU, deny tenure like at Iowa State, or return funding like at Baylor based on a difference of opinion, but I suggest not everyone here feels the same way.
————————————————————————————————————————-
"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 18, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I hate to do this here, but for the sake of factual accuracy, early South Africans were actually a yellow-skinned peoople, almost extinct today, of a different racial origin than the black-skinned Africans that displaced them.
Yes, but the problem is, I didn't steal from anyone. The people who stole from Africa are mostly dead. When government money goes to Africa, it comes from me, admittedly a white man of old Yankee descent, along with newer Irish, Italians, and even descendants of slaves. It isn't wrong to retrieve your property if it's stolen, but it is wrong to take equivalents from those uninvolved. I, as an individual, have done nothing to hurt Africa. Therefore, you have no right to demand compensation from me.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 18, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Sorry. Errant cut and paste. My comment was directed towards a quote provided by angryoldfatman.
You had said it was an issue of "academic freedom", yet Watkins had ample opportunity to have his voice heard. He denigrated Rosalind Franklin merely because of her gender, even though his own research depended crucially upon her work. He was young then, but now he is old. Today he denigrates others for the color of their skin. He deserves to be repudiated.
Comment by Zachriel — October 18, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
A nation retains a debt just as a corporation retains a debt. The new shareholders inherit the liability along with the assets. Forgiveness of debt is a real possibility, though, just as charity is a real possibility.
In any case, a democratic society has every right to make decisions on how to spend tax monies, including to aid neighbors in need. Your invocation of "stealing money" is at best hyperbole. It is no more "stealing" than making someone else pay for the road in front of your house. The wisdom of such policies is another matter.
Comment by Zachriel — October 18, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
I reject corporate, collectivist mentalities, as the one you ascribe to. Indeed, I think corporate identity needs to be done away with. Such artificial entities are only and untimately composed of individuals. What is more, I think that the matter of debt is far from clear, here. Dead people from this country took slaves a long time ago, but most of the deep and destructive interference was European, not American. Further, we have given Africa automobiles, televisions, computers, antibiotics. We have already sent aid for years. When does it end? It is questionable, too, whether the aid we give actually helps people in Africa in the long run. We may just be continually delaying the changes that would finally bring about a stable Africa. Such changes are driven by need, not charity.
All these arguments, though, are ultimately irrelevant, and I must return to my first point. You are not justified in holding me responsible for the decisions of others. I am not an appendage of the state, I am an individual.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 18, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
sciphi:
It's funny isn't it? You'd think their presumption would be that there were differences in intelligence unless proven otherwise, and yet when the subject even comes up, they usually become all sanctimoniously indignant and righteously strident about it, as if the very thought attacks some deeply held belief of theirs, as witness keith's huffing and puffing.
Here's what I think is going on. For the naturalist, there is no objective basis for intrinsic human value (as Dawkins says, there is at bottom no purpose, meaning, good, or evil). There is likewise no concept of human essentialism, which all men share and by which all men are essentially and objectively equal, regardless of their physical capacities. The human is just the sum of their physical attributes, which can vary.
However, most Western naturalists have deeply ingrained within them the democratic (and Judeo-Christian) principle of all men being created equal, and they cling to it as tightly as any other democratic citizen, even though they don't accept the metaphysic on which it was originally based. Since the only objective measure available to them is that of physical attributes, this translates for them into an insistence that all men, and especially all groups of men, have equal physical capacities, and especially the capacities of intelligence, which for them is the principle physical attribute distinguishing us from the animals (though only in degree and not in kind).
Keep in mind that most people hold their worldview largely for emotional reasons, and not just for rational ones, and they typically have an emotional investment in it as not just correct, but also better than other worldviews. Most naturalists are good enough citizens who didn't sign on to be racists, and in fact fancy themselves to be more humanistic and enlightened than religious folks. Discussions of differences in intelligence go to the very heart of their versions of human dignity and equality, and they know that if they assent to any such claim, their own philosophical premises would leave them powerless to defend against racist claims. Hence the feral reaction when the topic even comes up.
Comment by Deuce — October 18, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
The powers of government, necessarily and by definition those of force and coercion, ought only be used to prevent the same powers being used by outsiders or hostile citizens against its citizens. This is the sole legitimate purpose of government.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 18, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
You must reject all governments, then, even democratic systems that purport to represent the people wherein a majority will impose taxes and laws on everyone. Meanwhile people do openly buy and sell shares in corporations, assets and liabilities included, whether you choose to participate or not.
I haven't held you responsible for anything other than what you have said, however, I am quite sure that your government holds you responsible for paying taxes and obeying the laws, even those you don't agree with. And I'm sure that if the opportunity arose, you would have no problem partnering with others to form a corporation, assets and liabilities included.
Comment by Zachriel — October 18, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Hi Zachriel,
You wrote…
And the controversies surrounding ID have amplified its exposure, yet many in Telic Thoughts express concern when universities actively choose to distance themselves from this controversial subject.
Not setting up a lecture in the first place (or not granting tenure or not accepting funding) is one thing, it is another to change previous arrangements.
I consider this an issue of weighing ethical against moral considerations. The sponsors of the lecture had an ethical obligation to carry through with their promises to Watson and ticket holders. They chose, instead, to allow a sense of righteousness to rule their actions. Apparently you agree with them since you stress the importance of repudiating Watson as opposed to simply and dispassionately disagreeing with him.
Allowing a sense of righteousness rule to actions is a double-edged sword. Before you know it, we might become a Christian nation under God trusting in God regardless of ethical considerations of the US Constitution's first amendment.
————————————————————————————————————————-
"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 18, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
The importance of the principle easily outweights any inconvenience to the ticketholders, many of whom probably agree with the action, many of whom may have been directly insulted. Watson's inconvenience is irrelevant. If he's out of pocket, he can always sue and have the issue vetted.
Huh? The First Amendment protects the right of an institution to invite or disinvite whomever they choose. It's not as if Watson doesn't have other venues; and as I said, he has had every opportunity to have his say"”amplified far more than his comments deserved.
Comment by Zachriel — October 18, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Sorry, I am having trouble believing you are actually that obtuse.
You snipped that part where I said "Allowing a sense of righteousness rule to actions is a double-edged sword."
Officially sanctioning "under God" and "In God we Trust" 50 years ago was the righteous repudiation of godless communism.
Quite a few ID proponents feel the Darwianian theory of evolution also "…deserves to be repudiated."
What makes their righteous motivations any less valid than yours?
————————————————————————————————————————-
"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 18, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
You know nothing about me, Zack, and you have no basis for saying "And I'm sure that if the opportunity arose, you would have no problem partnering with others to form a corporation, assets and liabilities included". The problem with coporations is not partnerships, nor even shares, but rather that they are regarded as legal entities. I have no problem with business, just with artificial, conceptual entities becoming legal ones. The whole of the law ought to be, basically, "Don't physically harm other people, unless it they are trying to physically harm you or someone else. Don't take their stuff, either by force or fraud, without their informed consent." This law ought apply to those individuals with governmental positions as much as individuals elsewhere. If you stealing from me is wrong, it does not become right because you get enough people to do it with you (democracy), nor is it right for you to hire people to do the same (taxes). It is the very reason that our forefathers established a bill of rights, whereby the rights of the minority were protected from the tyranny of the majority.
As for Democratic systems, I reject those, indeed. We, for instance, live in a Republic. The role of government is to protect people's liberty, not impose upon them every whim of the majority.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 18, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Zachriel wrote:
That's great, but that quote was from a school biology textbook. I could've sworn biology was a science, especially when it concerns Darwinian evolution, which according to all of its supporters is the most proven science there is.
Besides, I thought science was supposed to destroy all of this unenlightened "colonization and imperialism" nonsense and usher in an Age of Reason. I guess science isn't as powerful as it is hyped to be.
In what way is it a "gross perversion" It seems rather logical and rational. Or I should say it was logical and rational enough to be the height of scientific thought until the mid-Twentieth Century (if you disregard Watson, that is).
If evolutionary psychology is a valid field, then culture and intelligence stem from genetics (which is what Watson implies).
If an evolutionary branch of Homo sapiens through geographical isolation forms a new culture because of its genetics, and then is reintroduced to and breeds with its original genetic stock, the new variations in the genome should be diluted out and the new culture will disappear after a few generations.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 18, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
angryoldfatman wrote:
The Golden Age of Imperialism pretty much coincided with the 150 years or so from the self-styled Enlightenment to the First World War—-the Age of Reason, with its open attacks on Christianity and religious belief in general by much of the intelligentsia, its frenetic application of mechanistic science to economics with devastating social consequences (so brilliantly analyzed in Karl Polanyi's classic work The Great Transformation), and the stoking of the fires that led to the unprecedented mechanized, industrial-scale mutual slaughter of the trenches waged by the rival imperialist Great Powers in 1914-1918. Earlier colonialism by Spain and Portugal in Latin America also owed much to technological/scientific advances in navigation and was principally aimed at exploiting metallic riches, spreading Christianity being little more than a figleaf for rapacity. This is shown, for example by the decision by Enlightenment-influenced Portuguese authorities to expel Jesuits from their colonies because of the latter's opposition to Indian slavery. This had the unfortunate effect that slavery was not abolished in Brazil until 1888, making it the last country in the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery.
Evolutionary materialism, of course, implies that all of this was just a natural outcome of natural processes, that it was essentially determined by ultimately reasonless physical forces, and that there exists no higher source of objective moral value or objective rational judgement by which this outcome or those processes can be externally critiqued. For if evolutionary biology is to explain the origins and very nature of morality or reason, it must show the link between morality and reason on the one hand, and adaptive behavior on the other. The trouble with this is that a very large range of human behavior is agreed to be irrational and/or immoral, while evolution has to hold that nearly all behavior derives from the adaptive features of our genetic makeup. From this it would follow that much, perhaps even all, irrational and/or immoral behavior is adaptive. But then adaptiveness cannot be that in terms of which moral (as against immoral) and rational (as against irrational) behavior is defined, or that from which specifically moral/rational (as against immoral/irrational) behavior springs.
Comment by stunney — October 18, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
From Yahoo news:
Comment by Bradford — October 18, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
stunney wrote:
Impossible.
I thought Dawkins plainly told us that it is religion (in particular, Christianity, because of its deep roots in Western culture) that produces almost all of the evils we see in society today.
Also, if I remember correctly, Dawkins believes that the global acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary theory should eliminate all of the conflict between people, because they would realize we are all just animals and there are no real differences between one human and another, or an ape or a human, or a bacterium and a human.
(Unless of course we're talking about different races of humans, then of course they differ a great deal in intelligence and culture, just like the co-founder of DNA and others have told us.)
The appearance and dissemination of Darwin's theory occurred at the very time you specify, stunney. It should have stopped colonialism and imperialism dead in its tracks, if Dawkins is correct.
Oh wait, that's right, religion still existed then. Darn. I wish bullet-proof proven facts of science were as strong as those superstitious delusions, then we wouldn't have had all that death and destruction.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 18, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Deuce and sciphi wrote:
Here is another reason why the type of claim Watson makes (even if his particular claim is incorrect) should really be expected by evolutionary naturalists:
Chatty Cave Men? Me Neanderthal, Talk Just Fine
Well, leaving aside that the headline is kinda betrayed by this bit in the article as quite misleading:
…yes, well, as I was saying, leaving aside that misleading headline, there is the reasonably obvious fact that no Neanderthals did any of a whole slew of very intelligent activities unique to modern homo sapiens—-agriculture, walking on the Moon, designing art galleries, conducting orchestras for operatic productions, book publishing, building permanent shelters, trapping for furs, and so on. Nonetheless, Neanderthals are classified as human by evolutionary biologists. Yet obviously the behaviorally indicated intelligence gap between modern humans and Neanderthals is enormous. So hypothesizing a lesser such gap between mostly isolated populations of modern humans seems to be almost required by evolutionary theory, since it is only the existence of such an initially smaller gap within the common precursor human population that evolved into Neanderthals and modern humans that can explain the dramatic differences between them. That is, it's required if we confine our explanations to those consistent with evolutionary naturalism.
Comment by stunney — October 18, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Joy wrote:
Hear! Hear!
Comment by mb — October 18, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
A corporation is just a type of contract whereby the shareholders agree to borrow, spend, and earn money. Contracts, including ownership and debt, are enforced by laws and courts.
By that standard, partnerships and other voluntary associations are perfectly valid.
There is no right in the Constitution to be free of taxation or free of legal constraints.
Without arguing semantics, in a Republic, you still have to pay taxes as passed by the legislative process, and follow the laws as enforced by the various branches.
You're avoiding the point. You equated taxation with representation with stealing. You can believe what you want, but there are implications to your beliefs.
Comment by Zachriel — October 18, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Deuce wrote this insightful comment:
If they can vary there is no biological basis for ruling out superior physical capacities a priori.
Creating the necessity of dogma for what amounts to a biological claim.
Exactly.
Comment by Bradford — October 18, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Stunney
The relationship between adaptive behaviour and morality is complicated and requires precise language.
True
Derives is a vague word …. might be true depending on what you mean… it does not for example mean that nearly all our behaviour is adaptive. I would agree that many of our dispositions to behave in certain ways were adaptive in the environment in which they evolved. Some of these dispositions are moral (compassion) - others (dispositions to eat, communicate, find a mate) are morally neutral or even immoral in some contexts. Whether these dispositions lead to adaptive behaviour depends on the context. For example, the disposition to eat sweet things is adaptive when you are short of calories and you breed early in life. It is not adaptive when there is an unlimited supply of calories and you breed in your 30s and 40s. Also different dispositions can conflict in the same person and which one wins out will depend highly on the cultural context.
True - and I am not aware of anyone who has ever held this view.
Springs is vague word. If you mean that moral behaviour is caused by some adaptations - then it is quite possible and is not precluded by anything you have said above. In this sense immoral behaviour and morally neutral behaviour also spring from adaptiveness.
If you mean, for example, that "moral" means "adaptive" or that you can justify the morality of an action by demonstrating its adaptiveness then this is false and no one I that I know of has said as much.
Comment by Mark Frank — October 18, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Yes, from 1914. And quite tame compared to racism in many pre-Darwinian texts.
What world do you live on? Reason is a slave to Passion.
Differing cultures are not directly correlated with differing genetics. An African raised in England will speak English with an English accent. Indeed, vibrant cultures often spread far beyond their borders and original populations. Sorry, you can't blame Mendelian Genetics for that misunderstanding.
Comment by Zachriel — October 18, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Okay, you want to go for the taxation as stealing angle? My having a vote does not make it okay for a majority of people, or at least, which scumbag they settled for electing, to decide that someone else ought to have the money I earned rather than me.
I doubt we'll reach a consensus on this. Yours is a collectivist viewpoint, mine an individualist one. We start from different premises and go in different directions. I think the individual has a right to decide for himself what he does and where he spends his money. You think the collective has the right to decide that for him. You think that we owe it to some disadvantaged group or another, because our group abused their group at some point in the past, and these groups still exist, so justice is possible. I see it as a group of individuals made decisions that led to the abuse of another group, and that is an outrage, but with the death of those individuals that made those decisions, justice passed to God or what have you, and is no longer available to us.
Alas, you continue the philosophy that caused the very horrors you seek to address. Africans, as a group, were seen as subhuman, so it was okay to enslave them. Jews, as a group, were seen as covetous usurpers, so it was okay to put them in camps and slaughter them. No individual evaluation is necessary in collectivist thinking. Conversely, no genocide was ever perpetrated out of an individualist philosophy.
Every law, every tax, is ultimately enforced from the barrel of a gun. By the majority passing a tax or law, they say that if I disagree with it, if I think it's a bad idea, they are willing to kill me for my resistance. What else is robbery but that? What else is oppression? When you kill me, not because I am attacking you or anyone else, but because I will not bow to your will as to how I ought to do things or how I ought to spend my money, you become a tyrant. What else is tyranny? Does that it is a tyranny of the majority make it less evil?
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 18, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
That was my original point, yes.
I understand. That, of course, is contrary to the intent of the Founders. No Taxation without Representation. You falsely burdened the Bill of Rights with freedom from taxation.
Yes, I agree. "The worst system except all the other systems that have been tried from time to time."
Yes, including laws against fraud, and the taxes required to support such enforcement.
Yes. Enforcing the Whiskey Tax was the same as genocide.
Comment by Zachriel — October 18, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
No, it just came from the same core philosophy: yours. The founders created this nation in order to secure freedom, not take it at the whim of people like you. Perhaps you don't interpret the Constitution as being as restrictive to government as I do. Perhaps the words of the author of the Declaration of Independence might enlighten us:
"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity." - Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 18, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Fraud is a form of coercion, by the way. I have no problems with laws against fraud. My summation was brief, include "and fraud" somewhere if you feel it necessary.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 18, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Thanks, mb. This seems so blatantly obvious to me, and apparently to Deuce also, who was drafting pretty much the same argument as I was posting! We know there is a range of ability on anything you care to measure over groups of people tested. That's the bell curve, where most people are somewhere around 'normal' and there are outliers at both ends. Even if the groups are all European or all Asian or all African.
When you start comparing races, you get the same bell curves, where most people of BOTH or ALL races tested fall within a norm. The exact midrange may move somewhat right or left between the groups if a racially-specific measurement is made, but it's statistically not significant enough to justify anything approaching racial prejudice. That same statistical range can be duplicated for any specific sub-measurements in a single group.
And, as we've known for awhile now, the tests designed to measure such a vaguely defined concept as "intelligence" are themselves culturally biased, thus known to give skewed results by internal design.
Deal is, James Watson uses this evidence of differences between people to justify his prejudice. The best empirical argument against this is to go ahead and acknowledge test bias and a bias present in the choice of what is being compared (sub-measurements). It's surprising to me that reactions to Watson's statements - which are no more controversial than any other statement he's ever made about his personal prejudices - haven't recognized this basic issue. It's okay to defend sociopolitical equality regardless of how results of flawed testing of a vague concept average out in the middle range. Because that's the right way to live together in respect, cooperation and peace.
There simply doesn't have to be any biological reason for us to know this is the best way to live together. It can simply be the result of reason and higher moral principle because it's right. It's humorous to me to see how shy they are of admitting that, point-blank. They just want to shut Watson up. They don't want to talk about right and wrong, even though they clearly know what it is.
Comment by Joy — October 18, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Mark Frank wrote:
Quite so. I personally find evolutionists' use of the word "˜adaptive' often very imprecise. Don't you?
Phew. That's a relief.
That could very well be the reason I didn't say that all our behavior is adaptive.
I don't believe that all of our behavioral dispositions evolved. I think a few of them did not evolve at all, in particular those involved in certain higher mental activities such as abstract thinking. I say more about that in several posts starting here on this thread.
Well, that was kinda my point—there's a big gap between the dispositions we have and their adaptiveness. Hence adaptiveness cannot be the sole explanation of human dispositions, including our dispositions to behave rationally or morally.
Notice I said "˜dispositions to behave'. Clearly not all our actual behavior is rational and/or moral. Stacks of it is irrational and/or immoral. (A philosophical aside: on Kant's view, immorality is a species of irrationality.)
Depending highly on the cultural context is a vague notion.
I am.
That's what I suggested follows from evolutionary naturalism—it implies that both widely observed moral behaviors and widely observed immoral behaviors are caused by their being (or having been) adaptive. Hence adaptiveness alone cannot explain their radically different normative properties. Hence adaptiveness alone can't explain the origin and nature of morality. I am therefore suggesting it's an 'edge of evolution'.
As far as I know, we're the only species of life even remotely concerned about the moral status of the Holocaust, the enslavement of blacks by whites, or the profits of big oil companies. Notice that as well as being inclined to make moral judgements about those matters, they're also each the outcomes of human behaviors.
That's ok since I don't mean either. Nor did I say or imply that evolutionary naturalists are committed to either thesis. Indeed, I'm well aware that many of them are far from holding either thesis since I'm also well aware that many of them reject moral realism altogether, and even go to the length of constructing error-theoretic accounts of morality.
Well, since I did not attribute either thesis to anyone, your last comment is irrelevant.
Comment by stunney — October 18, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
stunney:
Very astute, stunney. That's the whole point, isn't it?
Data is just data. It's interpretations that count, and the reactionaries who have responded so negatively to Watson's remarks from the scientific camp cannot justify their sociopolitical positions by citing this data. Wilson can't use it to legitimately support his extrapolations and racist conclusions, PZ Myers (and all the other SciBloggers weighing in) can't use it to legitimately support their negative reaction.
I don't have to cite any science to support my belief in equality of value and opportunity in the sociopolitical arena. I can do that in direct defiance of what scientific data says, and not feel the last bit defensive or guilty for it. Because I know that such ambiguous and manipulatable data can be used to support anything. It's my free choice to make between considerations of right and wrong. As it is anyone else's free choice to make.
It's not like this very issue (and its connection to Neodarwinism) hasn't raised its ugly head in recent enough history to loom large in the moral consideration department. My godparents had tattoos on their wrists, my husband's aunt was an orphan sterilized under draconian eugenics laws in THIS country.
Admitting that science is value-neutral in Big Questions of general moral importance in the sociopolitical arena is the first step to recovery (from scientism). Because upon this admission comes the realization that morality evolves in the sociopolitical world a lot faster and more purposefully than physical bodies evolve in the natural world. And that there's actual, real meaning and value to those 'higher' concepts. Beyond biology. Including the concepts of "meaning" and "value."
They're Intelligently Designed.
Comment by Joy — October 18, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I suggested you were engaged in hyperbole. I was certainly wrong on that point.
You are welcome to your philosophy, but you implied that all taxation is "stealing" and that this right is found in the Bill of Rights. That is certainly false.
And Jefferson certainly believed the government had the power to tax. He even discovered he could use U.S. tax dollars to buy Louisiana from the French and then to send out exploratory expeditions.
And enforcing such laws requires taxes. Additionally, people can voluntarily agree to work cooperatively. And then for these entities, corporations if you will, to make contracts with one another. Then you have legislatures to pass laws concerning trade. And then you have the judges required to interpret contracts. The police to enforce court orders.
And isn't selling spoil for food a fraud? So then we need food inspectors. And rules. And drug inspectors. And testing. And more rules. And a military. And rules to govern the military. And laws to protect children.
If only life were as simple as you would have it to be. An apple from your tree falls on your neighbors land…
Long ago. A river. People each plow their field and use a share of the water. Someone upstream discovers that he can take (or pollute) all the water. The choice then for society is conflict or negotiation. Hence civilization is born. You really don't seem to understand how intrinsic these sorts of complex agreements are to human society. There is no easy answer to "who owns the river".
Comment by Zachriel — October 18, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
stunney:
Stunney, you should study some game theory (at least watch the movie A Beautiful Mind). You would find out that there's such a thing as conditional strategies. Meaning that you modify your behavior (to your own benefit) when the circumstances change. It implies that there is no contradiction when individuals sometimes do X and at other times Y, even if Y=-X. I think it is easy to see that flexible behavior can be adaptive.
Comment by Raevmo — October 18, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Well, now, I never did say that all taxation was bad, or if I did, that wasn't my intent. Taxation for causes outside of the proper scope of government, such as for foreign aid, is bad.
The only entities in your corporation are the individuals that have made their agreement. You still don't get it. The contract is between one group of individuals, whatever they decide to call themselves, and another group of individuals. Modern corporations are legal entities, that is, defined by law, which have certain liability protections and powers. They are treated as if they can make decisions, but they can't. They're made up. Only individuals can make decisions. Only individuals can make the decision to buy, sell, or abuse.
You don't need food inspectors to check for spoiled food (look at the bang-up job they've done recently, anyway). People who buy their food can inspect it for themselves. I know I can spot rotted meat or vegetables, and I wash and/or cook them before I eat them. If they are sickened, they can sue. If negligence can be shown, harsh penalties can be brought upon those responsible (the owners of the business providing the food). Further, such will ruin their reputations, and they will lose business. Only food providers with a reputation for quality can rely on having business.
You're right. No one owns the river. So you may block any pipe that draws from it (or pours into it), destroy any dam in its path, and harm no one. You can undo their building on the river as soon as they start. Nor have they any right to stop you with force, for they have no greater right to the river than you. So, I guess you'll have to be civilized, and make agreements with those who have competing interests. You don't need to rely on "civilization" to help you.
Every law, every tax, is ultimately enforced from the barrel of a gun. By the majority passing a tax or law, they say that if I disagree with it, if I think it's a bad idea, they are willing to kill me for my resistance. What else is robbery but that? What else is oppression? When you kill me, not because I am attacking you or anyone else, but because I will not bow to your will as to how I ought to do things or how I ought to spend my money, you become a tyrant. What else is tyranny? Does that it is a tyranny of the majority make it less evil?
Now my turn. Answer my questions, if you can.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 18, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
I forgot blockquotes there, oh well.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 18, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
I suppose, for the poisoning thing, it does get more complicated. In that case, though, you are dumping with full knowledge that you are harming anyone downstream using the water. You are liable, and can be sued for their injuries, or even charged with a crime. It really isn't that complicated. Yeah, you might feel the need to detail the laws more than what, as I said, was my summary, but all laws need to be consistent with the basic premise.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 18, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
I accept that as a clarification.
Now, it's a policy question. E.g., Jefferson negotiated the purchase of Louisiana on behalf of the American people. He took money from people for the future good of the nation. People may disagree, and there is a legislative process involved to reach a collective decision.
The famous phrase is "taxation without representation is tyranny."
Comment by