Talk:William Shockley

Shockley was alienated

Shockley was alienated for espousing a politically unpopular (and therefore "controversial") view. The question Shockley raised may be politically charged, but it is a question of fact that is revived and given careful treatment by two renowned modern scientist in the widely read book - The Bell Curve. This is not a POV. These are all facts, and this is the heart of what I presented in my concise reference.

Some would say that if that question of fact is later shown to have been essential accurate, then it should be recorded that Shockley was a martyr for science in same way Galileo was. I mean persistent in advancing a scientific idea that is politically untenable.

I see by your edit it is still politically untenable. Even here, in the paradise of free communication. Well then, let us not sink in the bog of semantics. If we are going for paucity devoid of bias, let us agree simply to remove the term "controversial", which I feel is not necessary and carries a negative connotation. The reader can decide the merits of Shockley's ideas.

BTW: As a mathematics major, I would think you would appreciate the merits of statistical (and variance) analysis. Is this branch of mathematics a POV?

~KC

I'm fine with removing "controversial", but I don't agree there's any particular bias in saying so. After all, they were indeed controversial statements. Perhaps you have forgotten that you yourself called the Bell Curve a "controversial book" in the edit I deleted. It doesn't seem as if you were trying to give the book a negative connotation there.

I'm not interested in debating about race and intelligence. If you wish to debate such issues, the aforementioned Wikipedia page is the more appropriate forum. My only concern is that a page about Shockley should not make biased statements saying his claims were "bolstered" or not. --Chan-Ho Suh 09:19, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Isn't the accuracy of Shockley's theories a revelant topic? Especially if he were alienated/ostricized for them?

~KC

Sure, accuracy of his ideas is relevant...up to a point. For example, I think you would agree that even if everyone agreed he was correct, it would not be wise to put more than a sentence commenting something like, "His theories are now supported by..." However, that doesn't apply in this situation, because there is no widespread agreement. We have to keep the debate localized to pages where it is most appropriate, so as to avoid endless debate on article pages about every person who ever expressed a thought on race and intelligence. Note that someone recently made an edit trying to discredit Shockley's ideas; I considered it POV and reverted it also.

As for whether branches of mathematics are POV...certainly mathematical theories, i.e. theorems and mathematical statements, are not, but the point of applied mathematics is to apply the theory to real situations. I'm not making a comment specific to Herrnstein and Murray (or anybody else), but let me just say that the way theories are applied and the results interpreted can often be very POV. One has to make judgments of various kinds that are not the form of a strict mathematical deduction, but involve opinions and beliefs. That's why there's controversy and one can find respected scientists on different sides of the debate on race and intelligence. --Chan-Ho Suh 11:38, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Shockley as Mayflower descendant

I suspect the number of Mayflower descendants is quite large and inaccurate. Especially considering the high rate of "surprising paternity". I don't see what relavence it has, even if accurate. ~KC

I noticed there's a little back and forth on the history page for the article. I don't wish to initiate a revert war, which is why I am stating my opinion on the talk page, to see what the consensus is.

The basic issue under discussion is whether the fact that Shockley is a Mayflower descendant is notable enough a fact to mention. User:VeryVerily removed this fact because s/he didn't think so, stating:

"(rm mayflower descent; this is not a genealogical database, and tens of millions of americans are mayflower descendants, as well as descendants of other colonial figures)"

4.228.90.62 disagreed stating:

"(Revert. There are not "tens of millions" of descendants (and I am certainly not one of them) . The population of the US is 300 million. Are you saying 30 pilgrim couples populated the entire US?)"

After some googling (not extensively I admit), I find that "tens of millions" is the estimate given by several Mayflower descendant webpages. For example, from [1] we have:

"It has been estimated by Gary Boyd Roberts, of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, that there are some 30 million descendants of the Mayflower families. [1] So even if you don't carry the surname of one of the 23 progenitors that survived that first winter, it is still possible that you descend from one of them."

and from [2]:

"Today there are tens-of-millions of individuals descended from these brave souls. "

There are numerous other articles stating more or less the same thing but I'm not aware of where they're getting their information.

I find it plausible though. It is not unreasonable that 100 people, a little less than 400 years ago, managed to produce 30 million descendants. Just from a mathematical viewpoint, it is reasonable.

Also, note that [3] gives a number of famous people as Mayflower descendants. Are we supposed to introduce this "notable" fact on all these persons' Wikipedia entries?

I am of the opinion that while being a Mayflower descendant is cool and makes for interesting dinner conversaiont, it is not notable enough to warrant a mention on the Shockley page.--Chan-Ho Suh 12:16, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

No one's complained, so I'm going to remove the Mayflower reference. --Chan-Ho Suh 16:58, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Standard deviation

I have in front of me a Los Angeles Times (magazine, 6/5/05) article that says Shockley devoted himself to "dysgenics", the "idea that black Americans weren't as intelligent as white Americans..." Does anyone have a reference that includes mention of him "noting" a difference of a full standard deviation? If not then I think we should not attribute things to him that we don't have sources for. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Virtually all of that paragraph is unsourced in its present form. Focus on getting better sources in general before worrying about specifics. Rangerdude 08:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)