[dragonwriter]

> The question is who is most likely to be right, a nobel prize winning Ph.D. specialized in molecular biology, genetics and zoology, who worked 20 years at Harvard etc, etc....or you.

Or we could, instead of argument to authority, look at the actual research in the field, which doesn't support Watson's conclusions. (Neither does it strongly support their negation.)

And Watson's expertise is in the low-level mechanics of heredity; it's less relevant to broad population psychometry and the analysis of heredity of traits measured through such psychometry than is, say, a bachelor's degree in any of the social sciences.

> What about double helix? Is he wrong about that too?

By “he” do you mean Rosalind Franklin? But, no, of course that's not wrong, it's been extensively confirmed.

[Chris2048]

> By “he” do you mean Rosalind Franklin?

"he" obviously refers to the person you've been talking about: Watson.

[l0000p]

What is interesting here is that you disregard authority for results you disagree with and quotes authority for results you agree on. It sounds like your emotions are deciding which results you find 'correct'. This is the exact problem we're discussing.

[dragonwriter]

> What is interesting here is that you disregard authority for results you disagree with and quotes authority for results you agree on.

What is interesting here is that you have an obviously pre-conceived argument and simply invent false facts (such as the appeal to authority I did not make anywhere) to fit it when reality doesn't supply them for you.

[l0000p]

You're showing a curious case of projection. I'm not presenting any arguments in favor of Mr Watson's research, I'm pointing out that you are not basing your opinion on all available facts since you're arguing for censorship of research you disagree with for emotional reasons. And in turn, you accuse me of inventing facts that you're not willing to examine yourself. How curious.