Quoting Wikipedia: "Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities, and received funding from many sources. Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenic policies were first implemented in the early 1900s in the United States.[8] Later, in the 1920s and 30s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in a variety of other countries, including Belgium, Brazil, Canada, and Sweden,..."
We now believe the negatives of the eugenics movement, justifying the genocide done by the Nazis, outweighs any social good which might be possible from the scientific principles behind eugenics.
2) Should the US develop and use Orion-style nuclear propulsion?
Quoting Freeman Dyson: "this is the first time in modern history that a major expansion of human technology has been suppressed for political reasons." In short, it's better to ban nuclear bombs because of the increased mortality due to radioactive fallout than to have a single-stage-to-Saturn lift technology.
You might as well have said young earth creationism. In case of either eugenics or young earth creationism you got people who are trying to use pseudo science to bend the universe to fit their preconceived notions that in one case come from feeling of racial superiority and the other literal interpretation of the Bible. And yes both have been taught at higher education institutions.
But it is getting harder and harder to do that in this day and age thanks to easy access to information and vigilance of the scientific community.
You're quibbling. I can trivially turn the first into a non-policy question by "Does directed sterilization improve the general social condition?" I didn't do that because the previous commenter's statement placed no restrictions on the types of question I could ask. But it doesn't make a difference.
The scientific answer, 100 years ago, to this reworded question was "yes." Quoting from the Wikipedia article on eugenics: "Many members of the American Progressive Movement supported eugenics, enticed by its scientific trappings and its promise to cure social ills." Again I point out that there were academic posts in eugenics, conferences, and funded scientific research, and the result of this work guided government policy decisions, including government mandated sterilizations in Sweden up until 1975.
Remember, the topic I'm responding to is "Name one question for which a scientific answer no matter how inadequate was once the best, but for which now a philosophical or religious one is the best one?" The premise to the topic allows inadequate science, so I'm justified in using this case even though we had a poor understanding of genetics 100 years ago.
There are two dissenters, Benjamin Kidd and John M. Robertson. Kidd gives another counter-example for this thread:
> Many examples of a similar kind might be given. It may be remembered, for instance, how a generation or two ago Malthusianism was urged upon us in the name of science and almost with the zeal of a religion. We have lived to see the opposite view now beginning to be urged with much the same zeal and emphasis.
And I completely don't understand your statement about any confusion I might have in recognizing the differences between science and technology, or between basic and applied research.
> We now believe the negatives of the eugenics movement, justifying the genocide done by the Nazis, outweighs any social good which might be possible from the scientific principles behind eugenics.
This is science and politics, and partially based on the science of modern genetics, which shows that a number of things we thought could be stopped using sterilization really cannot be ended in that fashion. Down Syndrome, for example, is genetic but not always inherited, so sterilization wouldn't eradicate it.
> In short, it's better to ban nuclear bombs because of the increased mortality due to radioactive fallout than to have a single-stage-to-Saturn lift technology.
This is, again, a scientific decision based on evidence and reason. Orion may have been stopped for unscientific reasons as well, but that argument is scientific.
Politics is partially an applied philosophy. Many of the views of a political party are based in philosophical viewpoints. The idea that everyone has the "inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a philosophical viewpoint, and not a scientific one. What is the scientific basis for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
The planks of the Republican platform, which include opposition to RU-486 and similar drugs because they "terminate innocent human life after conception" is a philosophical viewpoint, and not a scientific one. What is the scientific definition of "human"? Can we scientifically determine when a cell is 'human'? Are frozen blastocysts human? What about HeLa lines? and so on.
So when you say "science and politics", I respond with "yes, what's your point?" Science is a knife. We use it poorly, and we get hurt. We use it one way and we make art, and homes. We use it another way and we kill.
We have to decide how we want to use science. Eugenics does work for crops. It does work for livestock. It should work for people. If we sterilize the ~2.5 million Americans (and any new immigrants) who carry the sickle cell trait, then sickle cell disease - which is definitely inherited - will be effectively eradicated in the US within 60 years.
Why don't we do that? Does science tell us why not?
Well, it does in a fashion. We can say that it's an emergent behavior of free actors who are the descendants of a species of primates, talk about population dynamics, and so on. But that emergent behavior is a round-about way of describing philosophy, ethics, and religion.
If we were an absolute dictatorship, then our Glorious Leader (praise be the Leader) could require sterilization of anyone with poor genetics, and it would happen.
Science just doesn't care. We are the ones who care, and have have to decide what it is we want to become.
It is dangerous to go against science. We should not do so lightly. But the scientific input is only one of many inputs. Yes, Orion is estimated to increase mortality by approximately one lifetime per launch, averaged out over the world. What is the increase in mortality caused by burning coal? By building cars? It's much higher. Yet we decided to kill Orion and still promote (and subsidize!) the auto industry. What is your scientific explanation for that?
> What is the scientific basis for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
The observation that, in reasonably-controlled (albeit retrospective) studies, societies that hew closer to them than others tend to do better over the longer term.
> What is the scientific definition of "human"?
If philosophy isn't meant to answer questions, why do you think science is meant to provide definitions?
Science is about figuring out how things work, which informs philosophy and, therefore, politics, to the extent that even if you ignore reality, reality won't ignore you: Having a philosophy that says rattlesnake venom is healthy won't make it not kill you.
> Science is a knife. We use it poorly, and we get hurt. We use it one way and we make art, and homes. We use it another way and we kill.
I agree with all of this.
Here's my take on philosophy: In order to figure out how the world should be, you first have to have a cogent and well-informed grasp on how it is. Your philosophy must be founded on science or else you're trying to derive Is from Ought. Figure out how the world works first, and then attempt to derive Ought from Is, if that's your thing.
> If we were an absolute dictatorship, then our Glorious Leader (praise be the Leader) could require sterilization of anyone with poor genetics, and it would happen.
Which, incidentally, would likely be the result of an unscientific policy, because science says we don't know enough about genetics to do a very good job of it.
Science tells us old-fashioned eugenics is nonsense. Stop trying to use it to discredit science.
> What is your scientific explanation for that?
Cognitive biases in humans are also studied by science, and science is a prime way to overcome cognitive biases using a stringent methodology.
"Science tells us old-fashioned eugenics is nonsense. Stop trying to use it to discredit science."
Then I have failed to get my point across. This is nothing about discrediting science. This is everything about the difficulties of understanding what the scientific evidence means.
I was responding to a poster who asked "Name one question for which a scientific answer no matter how inadequate was once the best, but for which now a philosophical or religious one is the best one?" My first response was to show a case where there was a scientific answer based on inadequate knowledge, and where the modern ethical belief is so strongly against that there's effectively no modern scientific research on the topic.
Read Galton's 1904 paper on Eugenics (http://www.mugu.com/galton/essays/1900-1911/galton-1904-am-j... ) and especially that of the commenters. You'll see that their worldview colors their understanding of the science. G. Bernard Shaw wrote "We kill a Tibetan regardless of expense, and in defiance of our religion, to clear the way to Lhassa for the Englishman; but we take no really scientific steps to secure that the Englishman when he gets there, will be able to live up to our assumption of his superiority." Most of the others have similar views of the superiority of the white race and the upper classes.
What blinders do we ourselves have? How do we recognize the ring of truth? Those two questions express the self-doubt which is the essence of scientific investigation, and you'll see even 108 years ago that Benjamin Kidd commented "The point of Mr. Galton's paper is, I think, that, however we may differ as to other standards, we are, at all events, all agreed as to what constitutes the fittest and most perfect individual. I am not quite convinced of this."
Now going to the other topics. "Having a philosophy that says rattlesnake venom is healthy won't make it not kill you." That leads directly to the handful of Pentacostal churches where members believe that if one has faith then one can handle snakes without getting bitten. Getting bit obviously means the handler didn't have enough faith. It's a nasty self-referential and self-supporting logical loop. Restating your words, the person ignores reality, reality hurts back, that failure reinforces a false understanding of the world.
There will always be semi-stable/chaotic attractors in the phase space of human civilization. Some of the scientific observations are only true around some of those attractors. We haven't had enough time to figure out if the UDHR has the effects you've described. How does one tell how well a given country hews to the UHDR? How does one measure how well a country is doing? Can you plot those two values and see if the relationship is statistically significant? Has anyone? In the analysis, should you weight the factors according to population size? Does Belgium count as two (or three) different governments? What about the Swiss cantons?
Now suppose let's consider adding the "Right to Refuse to Kill" to the UDHR. I believe your view is that we could look a countries which already have laws like UDHR+RRK and determine if those countries are doing comparatively better or worse than those which don't, and use that to decide if the RRK should be added to the UDHR or not? Doesn't have quite the ring as "we hold these truths to be self-evident", and your error bars are likely going to overwhelm the analysis.
"Science says we don't know enough about genetics to do a very good job of it."
I'll narrow that down a bit. Is there any genetic disease where we know enough about the disease that we can do a good job of eradicating it through eugenics? If not now, do you think that we ever will? When would forced sterilization be appropriate government policy for the US?
"Cognitive biases in humans are also studied by science"
Yes, indeed. My point is that some of those "cognitive biases" go by other names, including "religion" and "ethics." Using the term 'cognitive bias' does little except recast those into science-friendly terminology.
"science is a prime way to overcome cognitive biases using a stringent methodology"
My point is that I think most people doing science aren't pessimistic enough about their own research. I am not convinced that we are doing enough work in science to overcome our biases. I point you to 'Why Most Published Research Findings Are False', by John P. A. Ioannidis , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ : "It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false."
According to an article in "The Atlantic", Ioannidis analyzed "49 of the most highly regarded research findings in medicine over the previous 13 years". "Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective interventions. Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of these, or 41 percent, had been convincingly shown to be wrong or significantly exaggerated."
Quoting Wikipedia: "Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities, and received funding from many sources. Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenic policies were first implemented in the early 1900s in the United States.[8] Later, in the 1920s and 30s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in a variety of other countries, including Belgium, Brazil, Canada, and Sweden,..."
We now believe the negatives of the eugenics movement, justifying the genocide done by the Nazis, outweighs any social good which might be possible from the scientific principles behind eugenics.
2) Should the US develop and use Orion-style nuclear propulsion?
Quoting Freeman Dyson: "this is the first time in modern history that a major expansion of human technology has been suppressed for political reasons." In short, it's better to ban nuclear bombs because of the increased mortality due to radioactive fallout than to have a single-stage-to-Saturn lift technology.