Conservatives think it's fine to censor speech they don't agree with. Like the Bonghits 4 Jesus Supreme Court case, where conservatives were very happy that the speech was censored. Typical conservative hypocrisy.
Where's the prior restraint, in Watson's case?
So should Watson. Listen to some Jelly Roll Morton.
"I would also note that almost no one here is actually a scientist, much less a Nobel prize winner. So no one is all that qualified to debunk his idea. There are certainly falsifiable points in his premise on race (and probably plenty of research to support it). All that need be done is produce and make the argument, and the issue should be closed. But no, that's not sufficient, he has to be punished."
Remember Diogenes of Sinope?
He infamously critiqued Plato's definition of man as an 'animal, biped and featherless' by appearing in the philosopher's academy with a plucked fowl exclaiming to have found 'human being.' The incident apparently caused Plato to add to his definition, "having broad nails."
Where were Diogenes's credentials? He was homeless. Science doesn't care about credentials, just the evidence. My own evidence speaks out against the Watson quotations I've read on here. I think he doesn't get out enough to meet blacks who are intelligent. Or listen to Louis Armstrong, for example.
What is this "punishment" fetish? Was he prevented from speaking or selling his prize or posting racist rants on his blog or wherever?
Is this purely a "social" punishment you're so frightened of? Do you want to legislate how society should treat Watson when he spouts racism that is easily refutable by my own personal experience (he said "anyone who's had a black employee knows I'm right about blacks being inferior" or something similar)? But if someone like me says something you disagree with, then it's okay to punish them socially?
Is that the double standard you're espousing here?
Differences among individuals classified as being of the same race are greater than the differences between races.
You'd think he'd be smart enough to realize that selling it would cost him more in taxes than just keeping it. Oh wait, he still made tons of money.
He's guilty of confirmation bias. He's as bad as Jefferson saying blacks can't be educated because Jefferson never met an educated black man. But since educated black men exist now, Watson's worse. Ignorant at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.
In the classic case where Alice and Bob each have one photon of a previously-entangled pair, once Alice measures her photon, she knows what Bob will see. If there is a deterministic process in place that Bob follows upon measuring his photon, Alice now knows what Bob will do. She can prepare accordingly. She has gained information by measuring her photon; she knows what the other measurement will be. In the scenario mentioned, she knows what will happen across the universe, faster than she could otherwise know if she were limited to learning about what the other side saw, by the speed of light.
From your link:
The next time you're at the beach, watch the waves coming in. You will notice that the point where the wave breaks will often move faster than the waves do. This happens when the waves come in close to perpendicular to the beach.
The effect is that if you know the wave is breaking at point A, you can predict that it will break at point B soon afterward.
So, you predict the wave will break at point B. But why can't you manipulate the waves so that one part is traveling faster or slower? Then your prediction is false. Encode information in how far off your prediction is.
This post, by the way, indicates that receivers on the moon will experience activation faster than the speed of light would travel between them, just as waves on the beach can break faster than the waves are traveling.
What are you seeing from the earth, then? Are you seeing the laser travel across a fake moon? Where exactly is that fake image of the moon, and why can't the moon see it too from its side? From the moon side, the dot across the fake surface will also travel faster than the speed of light.
Encode information in the multiple of the speed of light that the dot (wherever it is) moves.
" Nothing moved faster than the speed of light in order to make this happen, no matter how fast the "dot" appeared to move"
And yet the dot can be seen to move faster than the speed of light allows, across the surface of the moon. If the receiver on the moon is looking at the laser, at some point along the laser it will see it moving faster than the speed of light.
Encode information in changes of a multiple of the speed of light. Both sides will see the dot moving faster than the speed of light, at some point along the laser beam.
Say you entangle two particles, and separate them by a long distance. You measure your particle, and know what the other particle will read when it is measured. You now have information on what the other side will see, when they measure the particle.
If you also know some other things about the other side, that it's a deterministic computer, say that will execute a certain action upon reading a "1" and another action upon reading a "0", you now know what the computer at the other side is doing, after you've measured your particle. You know this instantaneously. You know what the other side is doing, you can predict it. And you can devise your own reaction.
Say you know the computer on the other side will launch an attack in one quarter upon reading a zero, and in another quarter upon reading a one. You measure your particle; you now know which quarter the attack will take place, and you can prepare for that.
How is that not information gained at the speed of entanglement, i.e. faster than the speed of light?
Why can't you encode information by changing the speed at which you flick your wrist? At one wrist-flick speed, the dot travels at one multiple of the speed of light; at another wrist-flick speed, the dot travels at a different multiple. The receiver tracks the dot and decodes the speed changes into bits or other representations of information.
I know that I'm individual. I've learned foreign languages. I use my methods, which included grammar, pronunciation, and literature. But I don't generalize from myself to assume that anyone else should learn my way. Why do teachers? For control.
I think Alfie Kohn says it best in The Case Against Grades:
although teachers may be required to submit a final grade, thereâ(TM)s no requirement for them to decide unilaterally what that grade will be. Thus, students can be invited to participate in that process either as a negotiation (such that the teacher has the final say) or by simply permitting students to grade themselves. If people find that idea alarming, itâ(TM)s probably because they realize it creates a more democratic classroom, one in which teachers must create a pedagogy and a curriculum that will truly engage students rather than allow teachers to coerce them into doing whatever theyâ(TM)re told. In fact, negative reactions to this proposal (âoeItâ(TM)s unrealistic!â) point up how grades function as a mechanism for controlling students rather than as a necessary or constructive way to report information about their performance.
So, first, get rid of grades. Teach like Socrates, without tuition or tests. Just knowledge exploration, where Socrates is often just as confused at the end of the dialog as his interlocutor.
If a subordinate asks you a pertinent question, look at him as if he had lost his senses. When he looks down, paraphrase the question back at him.
