I would have given no oxygen to the appallingly stupid views of this washed out plagiarist. But on a thread I was alarmed by what seemed to be a view, subtle and pernicious, that the hostile reactions he had received might have been due to political correctness rather than justified disgust over the poor quality and pure toxicity of his thinking. Intelligence, in the sense this octogenarian clown insists on using it, is political not scientific. It originates in the pseudoscientific craniometric disciplines now thoroughly discredited. Used in the way that he insists on using it, the notion of intelligence is no different from such qualitative terms as honesty, truth, beauty, courage, etc. All of which can be deployed to dubious political ends, partly because they subject unreliably to objective benchmarks and assays. In fact many of his ilk also believe that persons from certain cultural backgrounds are ugly, liars, slovenly etc. Should we develop cosmetometric, racial personality, virtuometric and similar high-sounding tests to empirically evaluate such views too? And use them in the same way IQ tests have been abused to date? A single number for courage, beauty, chastity, trustworthiness, etc.? And rank nationalities, towns and and whole racial groupings by such grandiose measures? The idea of intelligence evokes and invokes a judgmental metric that can never be left to science devoid of politics. Intelligence is that which you must have more of in order to succeed. This is anti-evolutionary logic, and therefore unscientific. It is teleological, explaining success in terms of something pre-defined as desirable, something much more than the mere survival of the adapted gene pool. In Darwinian terms, Africa is doing just fine. We must look to more than mere reproductive success and a host of intangible measures in order to critique Africas current condition. He mentions development and social policy etc, and he does so in a way that shows that he lacks even the most rudimentary education beyond his narrow specialty to recognise that these grand social and cultural notions cannot be subjected to the laboratory measurements of the natural sciences, and are therefore fit for full appraisal only in their proper province of politics. Seen that way, his views are no less politically repugnant than that of a Nazi concerning a gypsy. And God knows Nazis carried out the fruits of these opinions into reality, and compelled the development of laws against hate speech. This is not a scientific enquiry or civil freedom of speech matter. This is a political campaign derived from hate and should be met with the full force of counter - reactionary logic and advocacy. This man Is no better than a Nazi. He proposes subjugation of peoples unlike his kin on the basis of a reprehensible and idiotic criterion. Hear the old fool: All our policies are based on the assumption that their intelligence are equal to ours, but that is not really true. Ergo? No wonder he is the first man to sell his medal. Karmas way of saying, undeserved.
Posted on: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 22:53:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015