Ignorance vs. dishonesty: hard to discern

Spread the love

False statements may be based on honestly held false beliefs, or may be intentional deception (with the good intention to “avoid prejudice”). Freudian unconscious& denial, self deception can mix and confound ignorance and dishonesty.

Ignorance can be

Ignorance or Lie?

Either out of innocent false conviction, or out of intent to lie, the same patently false statements can be uttered

1) “Women athletes and women fighters are as capable as men”.2: When uttered by experts in sports, biology, medicine, or expressed by Hollywood social engineers, it is likely an intentional blatant lie.

Intentional fraudulent dishonesty is hard to discern from ignorant parroting of dishonest information. The effect is the same. We consider “kind of” insincerity if the ignorant speak up in public pretending to know.

Non-stop brainwashing puts false ideas into people’s subconscious. Hollywood movies invert reality (social engineering): Computer nerds are black, street criminals are blonde whites , and women fight as good as the strongest men.

A sincere society would not promote ignorant postmodernism to faculty tenure positions in women’s and African studies, sociology and similar ideologically driven fields. The belief that the human brain is exempt from the laws of evolution and 100% identical in all races is dishonest for scientists. But it became honest false belief in the majority of the brainwashed people.

2) “Race differences in IQ are not supported by science”

Watson:

‘‘… is ‘‘inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa’’ because ‘‘all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really,’’ and [he knows] that this ‘‘hot potato’’ is going to be difficult to address [1]’’.

These thoughts were a continuation of the concluding paragraphs from his new book Avoid Boring People:

‘‘A priori, there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so [2, p. 326]’’.

James Watson tells the inconvenient truth, faces the consequences [short version] shows shocking extreme lies or evasive misleading distortions by leading scientists and scientific organizations.4* 5 with J. Phlippe Rushton. Not mentioning Rushton’s research shows blatant dishonesty. But Sternberg’s argumentation against Rushton also shows blatant ideological blindness.

Steven Rose, a professor of biology and neurobiology in London similarly told the media that ‘‘… If [Watson] knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically’’ [3, my emphasis].

The Federation of American Scientists issued a statement condemning Watson, claiming that there is no scientific literature supporting his claims:

‘‘The Federation of American Scientists condemns the comments of Dr. James Watson that appeared in the Sunday Times Magazine on October 14th… The scientific enterprise is based on the promotion and proof of new ideas through evidence, however controversial, but Dr. Watson chose to use his unique stature to promote personal prejudices that are racist, vicious and unsupported by science’’ [7, my emphasis].

What utter dishonesty, a Federation of Scientist demands proof, ignores overwhelming proof that is cited here, and itself does not furnish proof. 

But one thing was conspicuously missing from these numerous scientifically framed condemnations: any semblance of factual refutation. There is good reason for this: everything Watson got in trouble for saying was entirely correct! [Source: James Watson tells the inconvenient truth, faces the consequences [short version]]

[/note] The journalists and citizens who then parrot these lies probably do so out of naïve ignorance due to lying scientists and lying media. They just did not read the truthful scientists’ statements 6

  • Nathan Glazer honestly defends his opinion that untruth is better:

Herrnstein and Murray have a very good special reason: smarter people get more and properly deserve more, and if there are more of them in one group than another, so be it. Our society, our polity, our elites, according to Herrnstein and Murray, live with an untruth: that there is no good reason for this inequality, and therefore society is at fault and we must try harder. I ask myself whether the untruth is not better for American society than the truth.

Nathan Glazer is author, most recently, of The Limits of Social Policy (Harvard University Press). [Source]

  • James Watson Racist: Nobel James Watson Top 20 most influential Americans of all times, top 100 Person of all times, was socially and scientifically destroyed for a well meaning comment about race differences

Leave a Reply

Leave a Comment

Specify Facebook App ID and Secret in Super Socializer > Social Login section in admin panel for Facebook Login to work

Specify Twitter Consumer Key and Secret in Super Socializer > Social Login section in admin panel for Twitter Login to work

Specify LinkedIn Client ID and Secret in Super Socializer > Social Login section in admin panel for LinkedIn Login to work

Specify Google Client ID and Secret in Super Socializer > Social Login section in admin panel for Google Login to work

Specify Instagram Client ID in Super Socializer > Social Login section in admin panel for Instagram Login to work

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *