On Science and Politics:
17/3/11 13:28![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
underlankers.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsA question that I think is worth asking, when it comes to application of state power to scientific policy, is whether or not the eugenics that existed in the late 19th Century-1970s West was really a science or whether it was not really a science. At one point, eugenics, an idea that set very specifically Northern Europeans over other Europeans who were over non-whites who were over Jews, was quite the popular idea in the Western world. In the democracies it was opposed typically by (some of the) fundamentalists and the Commies and that was that. Eugenics had scientific journals, and worked according to the peer-reviewed experimental process.
People would literally do experiments to show that particular groups were life-unworthy-life, and this within that context was fully scientific. The pseudoscience of the time, like Creationism and Theosophy, worked much as it does now: proposing entirely self-contradictory ideas without a fragment of proof that never change with the seasons. It was very much the influence of eugenics that was why Raymond Dart's discovery of the Australopiths had been rejected for Piltdown man, for the "superior lifeform" that was the European man could not possibly have been descended from the simple savages of Africa.
So my question to you is why is it that eugenics is no longer a science? Why is it that people *now* recognize the fallacies raised in the Bell Curve but then it was as much a science as biology?
In my view, the fate of eugenics illustrates a disturbing possibility that in some cases the scientific method, in theory supposed to be geared to discrediting fallacious ideas, can in fact perpetuate them and give them a legitimacy they would not have otherwise. When Oliver Wendell Jones, Jr. embraced eugenics as a science, was he or was he not a scientist? Most crucially, how was it that if eugenics was not science, that there could exist experiments, the peer review process, and journals geared to it? Where did the scientific method fail to point out its flaws?
Of course to me the answer's simple: eugenics stopped being a science due to Josef Menengle and Shiro Ishii, not because it was scientifically discredited, but I'm curious as to what others would say about it.
People would literally do experiments to show that particular groups were life-unworthy-life, and this within that context was fully scientific. The pseudoscience of the time, like Creationism and Theosophy, worked much as it does now: proposing entirely self-contradictory ideas without a fragment of proof that never change with the seasons. It was very much the influence of eugenics that was why Raymond Dart's discovery of the Australopiths had been rejected for Piltdown man, for the "superior lifeform" that was the European man could not possibly have been descended from the simple savages of Africa.
So my question to you is why is it that eugenics is no longer a science? Why is it that people *now* recognize the fallacies raised in the Bell Curve but then it was as much a science as biology?
In my view, the fate of eugenics illustrates a disturbing possibility that in some cases the scientific method, in theory supposed to be geared to discrediting fallacious ideas, can in fact perpetuate them and give them a legitimacy they would not have otherwise. When Oliver Wendell Jones, Jr. embraced eugenics as a science, was he or was he not a scientist? Most crucially, how was it that if eugenics was not science, that there could exist experiments, the peer review process, and journals geared to it? Where did the scientific method fail to point out its flaws?
Of course to me the answer's simple: eugenics stopped being a science due to Josef Menengle and Shiro Ishii, not because it was scientifically discredited, but I'm curious as to what others would say about it.
(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 18:55 (UTC)However, when we say that some people have "good" genes and others 'don't', in our opinion, i don't think tha this is a sound basis for dealing with people, for a couple of very sound reasons.
Is it Professor Stephen Hawking who is the author of ' A Brief History of Time?"
It may be said that this outstanding author would not have survived in a previous era due to his physical disabilities - yet he is undoubtedly one of the greatest minds of our age, if not all time. Curtail his existence because he is ' unfit'? I don't think so.
And what of many who have sickle cell anemia? Again this is a genetic defect, yet it also confers some immunity to malaria, and therefore tends to survive as a gene among populations where malaria is common.
Ok, i leave the moral argument out of it - nobody has the right to treat a child as simply a 'disposable asset' and discard or rejecta baby who does not meet ' parental requirements'. They just aren't. End of story.
It is probably true that we could eliminate some diseases by screening parents for genetic abnormalities. But say to a mother " you cannot/ must not have a child because..."?
By all means advise parents that their offspring may be born deaf, or whatever, but eliminate the congenital defect by terminating the pregnancy simply because? Again , I don't think so.
Of course, we can improve domestic livestock by selective breeding. And, we could use genetic and other technology to do the same with the human population . but should we, just 'cos we can ?
Such a policy would take several generations to show a result. It would eliminate people like Hawking and Beethoven, and is not worth doing on those very practical grounds alone, never mind the moral issues on whether we have the right to 'play God' and deny anyone else the right to live and have children of their own.
(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 20:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 21:26 (UTC)So I guess you would be saying that incestuous inbreeding could be a bad thing? We need to notify some states in the South immediately.
(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 21:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/3/11 23:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 19:26 (UTC)Suppose that hypothetically the claims of eugenics were correct - how would that affect humanity if one race was really proven superior to another? The consequences would be as dire as they were under the Third Reich. So my addendum-question is: would we still be fine with *a* science if it's a detriment to society and brings more harm than good, even after having fully grasped it and harnessed it?
(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 20:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 20:32 (UTC)(no subject)
(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 21:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 21:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 21:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/3/11 00:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/3/11 15:55 (UTC)humananimal. a few carnivorous dinos should do the trick.(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 22:39 (UTC)With SauropodFood(TM) of course, duh! It's in the pets section at WalMart.
(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 20:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 20:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 21:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 21:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 21:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 21:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 22:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 19:36 (UTC)The scientific method does not tell us that we ought to carry out this plan.
The scientific method can tell us that people of population Y perform better or worse than people of population Z on some specific test.
The scientific method does not issue statements about the relative human or moral worth of members of populations Y or Z.
The evils of eugenics were not due (I think) to a flaw in science, but rather the unstated nonscientific assumptions adopted by the eugenicists, e.g. that acting for the 'good of the gene pool' obliges us to sterilize the 'unfit'.)
Eugenics was not 'scientifically discredited' because the scientific method is not an applicable tool for determining whether a practice is right or wrong.
"When Oliver Wendell Jones, Jr. embraced eugenics as a science, was he or was he not a scientist?"
Well, he was not a scientist. He was a Justice.
(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 20:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/3/11 07:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/3/11 16:21 (UTC)Science can indeed be useful in maximizing a prescribed well-being function. But it cannot tell us that that function is the uniquely correct measure of 'well-being' to use.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/11 18:12 (UTC)Ah, a review. Have you read the book?
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/11 19:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/3/11 20:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 20:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 21:51 (UTC)Yes, but the worth of a human being is not an empirical thing.
Eugenics is not scientifically *incorrect* like, say, Lysenkoism. It is a fact that 58 feeble-minded left-handers are born every day. Every day! It is a fact that if we incinerate everyone who carries the gene for Tay-Sachs disease, Tay-Sachs will be eliminated forever (barring a new sport). It is a fact that the average African American score on IQ tests is lower than the average white American score.
But eugenics is not a recitation of these facts, but the advocacy of a particular response from society and the law.
I would compare eugenics to the current state of climate science. The facts tell us that certain Micronesian islands will vanish unless things change. Science doesn't care that people living on them will be made homeless. Science makes no moral judgment on either the islanders or the drivers of SUVs. It is not a *problem* to Science; it is merely a fact (or a reliable prediction based on sound science).
Some climate scientists may see it as a problem and advocate for particular solutions: various laws and regulations. That advocacy should not be mistaken for the practice of science.
Similarly, those scientists who were vocal in the eugenics movement did some science (although I believe the legendary studies of the 'Jukes' and 'Kallikaks' are now assessed as falling somewhere between 'poor methodology' and 'fraudulent'). But the scientists correctly discovered the heritability of particular diseases and so on. But when they moved on to advocating behavior, laws and regulations, they moved from science to advocacy. And were happily supported by likeminded non-scientists from the Anti-Immigrant organizations to the Rockefellers.
(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 22:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/3/11 00:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/3/11 23:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 20:20 (UTC)If the gene pool is is concentrated around a singular idea of perfection, that will only lead to a concentrated vulnerability from other factors.
(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 20:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 20:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 20:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 20:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 20:50 (UTC)Well, "the scientific method" isn't a people, so it can't do anything beyond what people do. Yes, human science is a human project that is imperfect and flawed. Oh noes.
(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 20:52 (UTC)You know know that there are "journals" out there about psychokinesis, clairvoyance and ESP right? Just because things have the trappings, it doesn't mean anything about science.
(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 21:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 21:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 22:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 23:15 (UTC)To the best of my knowledge it never was seen as a science by the scientific community, just a few individuals therein and a large chunk of the public. It took advantage of the general ignorance of biology at the time, and was ultimately shot full of holes once many of the conditions its advocates used as sterilization criteria were discovered to be the results of virulent disease rather than genetic conditions and the decoding of genes showed that the "races" were meaningless.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/11 00:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/3/11 00:24 (UTC)It should not be confused with reproductive science or deliberate genetic selection in general.
Eugenics as a theory, as demonstrated in numerous examples, most well know of course being Nazi Germany, has clearly been resoundly falsified. Germany was NOT improved by these efforts.
Let's not forget the elephant in the room:
Date: 18/3/11 00:36 (UTC)Re: Let's not forget the elephant in the room:
Date: 18/3/11 23:19 (UTC)