Watson is also keen about searching for genes that can cause differences in behavior or differences in personality among individuals and groups. As he sees it, ``Knowledge, even that which may unsettle us, is surely to be preferred to ignorance, however blissful in the short term the latter may be.`` I am not so sanguine. What possible good, for example, could come from a study of genetic differences in I.Q. between ethnic groups?
A finding of ``no difference`` may slightly reduce racism, but it would surely be disregarded by most bigots. The opposite finding would have disastrous consequences: institutionalized racism and odious social policies.
Doing Acid, By New York Times
Jason Malloy characterized this position as "I say unto you: A vote for the truth is a vote for Jim Crow!"
So it would seem that ignorance isn`t bliss, where social policy is concerned.
Here`s a quote from a man defending science against obscurantism:
Whether he knows it or not, [his] forthright declarations, denying any possibility that empirical matters of fact might differ from those assumed by his creed, amount to nothing less than a rejection of the whole institution of science.
No, it was Professor Jerry Coyne, attacking Sam Brownback for raising his hand when asked if he "didn`t believe in evolution." [DON`T KNOW MUCH BIOLOGY,, By Jerry Coyne, Edge 212,June 6, 2007] I might agree with him here, but I call it inconsistent.