Have you heard about this?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302836,00.html

The man has now been barred from a speaking engagement because of his words. The disturbing thing to me is that no one asked what research he was referring to. In other words, the hypothesis isn't even allowed to be entertained. I think his remarks were inflammatory, and served absolutely no purpose other than to anger people and possibly set back race relations. However, if someone makes a point that is purportedly based on evidence, an appropriate response would be to challenge him by asking to review the evidence. Otherwise, it opens the door to criticism that people just didn't LIKE what he said, and responded only with emotion. His claims should be challenged with evidence, such as peer-reviewed scientific studies, not with emotion.

What does "smarter" mean? Scoring higher on tests? Higher IQ? Knowing more stuff? Or, their brains are genetically more capable of thinking and functioning? It matters a lot, if you want to make sense of any evidence or findings he might present.

shane, how nice, a FOX-sourced story.

Anyway, I went there hoping to find out if "the man" (as you called him in your post -- is there anything wrong with using his name or was it your intention to force us to go to the FOX website to find out his name?) HIS OWN scientific peer reviewed study. I couldn't tell. So if he didn't, then he's just guessing.

"how nice, a FOX-sourced story."

So, what's wrong with that? There are now over 560 stories listed on this at Google News. It's even at Huffington.

Wow, 559 opportunities for a more trustworthy source and he picks FOX news and doesn't name the guy he's talking about. This should be a dead thread.

What if he's right?

Then its a topic worth discussing. But as Carl Sagan used to say, 'extraordinary claims demand extraordinary' evidence. Dr. 'the man' should put put this extraordinary evidence right in front of us and start the debate there -- does the evidence support the claim yes or no?

My hunch is that we're looking at a Utah State University "cold fusion" type thing -- sloppy research. Nobody else was able to replicate Dr's Pons and Flieschman's research (and apparently, neither could they).

This just in:

DNA Nobelist apologizes for implying blacks are inferior

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-sci-watson20oct20,1,5066141.sto ry?coll=la-headlines-world

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly.

"That is not what I meant. More importantly, from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

There we go. No scientific basis.

Is there a scientific explanation of why blacks seem to be more athletically inclined? How about any basis for why African's fare so well at running marathons?

Why is it so un-PC to note the differences between races? Do you all really think we're all created equal in body and mind?

The danger is in seeing genetic differences between races that are really the result of social inequities. Nature v. nurture - how can you be sure which one it is?

Skeptical,
Generally, when someone presents a link, they expect you to read the story before making sense out of the comments posted below the link. I wasn't writing a story, I was referencing one. And I found it at Fox News' web site, so I linked you to it. It's not Bill O'reilly, it's not Hanity, it's a story that's on all kinds of news sites. Maybe you should change your name to "Cynical", Skeptical.

"Is there a scientific explanation of why blacks seem to be more athletically inclined? How about any basis for why African's fare so well at running marathons?"

The journal Science explains that it is likely due in part to the ratio of fast-twitch fibres found among those with african ancestry.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5684/637

Peering Under the Hood of Africa's Runners
Constance Holden
Kenyans dominate endurance running, and West Africans excel as sprinters. With a physiological explanation in hand, researchers are now probing the genetics of this geographic mastery.

Herb

"It's not Bill O'reilly, it's not Hanity, it's a story that's on all kinds of news sites."

But why should we have to wonder if its factual or slanted FOX BS? By removing any FOX association with the story, one increases the potential of it being factually correct and worthy of our time.

BTW, the media failed (not just FOX) on this story by not grilling what's-his-name for research evidence right after the words left whats-his-name's mouth. As a result this whole episode is a giganic waste-of-time non-story leaving a bunch of red faced people in its wake.

Dr. what's-his-name should have been a bit more careful in word choosing and the press should have been PRESSING him for evidence.

Oh, and yeah, this entire country has become a nation of fatigued-induced cynics! 1 year 3 months to go.

"But why should we have to wonder if its factual or slanted FOX BS?"

I understand that YOU hate Fox News, but they are a news organization, and I'll continue to reference stories from their site from time to time.

Approximately some 20-30% of FOX viewers think WMDs have been found in Iraq while its about 7 to 8% for NBC/CBS/ABC viewers.

Why is this? Slanted news or dumb viewers? You tell me. I choose not to be one of those in the 20-30% FOX group. You're free to be brainwashed if you wish.

Just like the left can't handle Mr. Bush beating them twice, Libs just can't stand it that Fox trounces leftist CNN and MSNBC with regularity.

It's always sour grapes with that crowd.

Herb

Yes. It's ratings of cable channels that drive me apeshit.

I will fully concede that, yes, I was stunned by Bush winning twice. I CAN handle it - I just hate it.

Fox's ratings are pretty low on my scale of outrage though. So, no, it's not " just like " that.

>>Mr. Bush beating them twice

The same bald-faced lie repeated so many times before by the troll, don't even bother responding, Trix.

To those who cannot accept the reality of Mr. Bush's being elected as president for two terms, please remain oblivious to the facts. It makes the left look even more extreme, whilst making our job of replacing him with a pro-defense, pro-family conservative, that much easier.

This was exhibited for all to see this week, by rabid leftist anti-American politicos foaming at the mouth about how Mr. Bush derives pleasure from our troops dying in battle. Moveon.commie is actually doing the heavy lifting for Republicans, because the American public will not stand for such partisan lunacy.

With the courts packed for at least several generations, the overturning of Roe v. Wade is inevitable.

Herb

" With the courts packed for at least several generations "

Overstate much?

Let's just say that the court is decidedly different than during the left-leaning Earl Warren days.

Seriously...did you think you'd EVER see a specific type of abortion outlawed and upheld by the highest law of the land?

With the advent of a conservative court, plus advanced medical techniques, the recognition of post-abortion syndrome, along with advanced fetal imaging, the 'fetus' is now publicly recognized as truly human, save but for among the most bloodthirsty.

Herb

Yes, let's say that. Instead of " several generations."

Troll sez: "bloodthirsty"

Ah, that's why we're over in Iraq then too.

"Yes, let's say that. Instead of "several generations."

As you wish.

Herb

Speaking of The Supreme Court though - I'm about 50 pages into Jeffrey Toobin's " The 9."

I like his analysis on TV ( when it's not celebrity related ). I'm hoping the book holds up too.

WOW!
Think the Indians will win in 6 or 7???

"Why is this? Slanted news or dumb viewers?"

It's a combination of both.

GO INDIANS!!!!