Dubious Science

The front page of The Independent today reports the outrage at Nobel (although its controversial) scientist James Watson's outrageously racist assertions that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites. And that (I'm paraphrasing) our social policies are all erroneously constructed and bound to fall short in their non-reflection of this fact. Its always a bit shocking when an academic of respected standing comes out with this sort of thing. Although its not entirely rare. I remember similar outrage at my uni last year when a member of the psychology dept (Dr. Philippe Rushton) came out with some similiar crap on gender - he was already well known in the controversial scientific studies stakes for having reached the same conclusions as Watson via psychological methods... something about it being a trade-off between brain size and penis size. Watson's new outburst comes not to announce the results of any fresh scientific evidence but rather the release of his new book. In which, as quoted in the Independent, he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically." Leaving aside the complex problematics of the term 'intellectual capacities', and the problems of drawing such implications from whether or not there is 'firm reason to anticipate' anything, yes of course there is biological difference between races of people that evolved apart. Strikes me though that all the responses which try to rubbish the possibility of scientifically 'proven' racial difference in such areas miss the key point - which is that, on Watson's own terms, this is totally irrelevant. If we are talking on a social level then we are talking about human beings in social terms - as members of society, as citizens. This is the framework within which the term 'intellectual capacities' gains its meaning. To talk about genetic difference of races in such terms has no valuable meaning - that concerns human beings as a species, as animals. If we are to credit human beings with human intelligence - with the ability to exist as part of a society, with the power of choice - then we are no longer talking of humans in animal terms. They are two incommensurate perspectives. Only by considering human beings from the first perspective can you have compassion, morality etc. etc. ... can you draw conclusions about the structure of society. Probably all best just ignored I think. Although I imagine that with regard to his imminent UK lecture tour the opposite will now be true.