A reminder of a block to the EC program in American society

Science was once used to justify eugenics and anti-semitism. But not slavery. Thankfully that is over. Religion was (and still is) extensively used to justify slavery, racism, anti-semitism, sexism, homophobia and the like. So it got a head start there.

btw, Ben Stein of ID fame has said that science leads to killing people!!

1 Like

reference please!

Hi Eric! :slight_smile:
A great many people have trusted other people for bad reasons having nothing to do with science. Science is one of our best tools for combating that tendency.

We don’t trust scientists because of their credentials; we trust science because of a long history of progress, innovation, invention, and correction of errors. We might think someone with appropriate credentials is knowledgeable in their field, finding them trustworthy. But we and have the option of verifying claims to validate that trust. There are legitimate disagreements to be sure, but these tend to be short lived as knowledge advances beyond the disagreement.

3 Likes

I found a site with this quote from “Expelled”, but no time-stamp on when during the movie it occurs.

> “Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.”

Spoiler-blur added in hopes of avoiding another instance of Godwin’s Law. Read at your own risk.

3 Likes

If I remember rightly doesn’t the quality of discourse begin to steadily decrease from that point on? Often to such an extent that the conversation is effectively over from the moment the law comes into play (which in this case would be post no. 5)?

2 Likes

fortunately due to quantum probability there’s always a chance we can deviate!

2 Likes

Well met Sir Dan!

I don’t really believe the history of science backs that ideal up. Past couple centuries are full of horrible deeds being justified in the name of science.

And, to be clear, I am not saying anything bad about the process of science itself. It is when humans enter the picture that we start getting problems. While the scientific process may be unbiased, people conducting the science are not. And the process does not itself guard against groupthink and the like that exists in any other human institution.

Basically, there is nothing about the human institution of science that guarantees it some kind of infallibilty such that its pronouncements should be accepted without question. I’m pretty sure we can all agree on that point.

Science leads to killing people–or not

This isn’t where I first heard the clip. But it should do.

If I recall correctly from watching The Eugenics Crusade, Hitler got his ideas from Americans and then extended them for his own racist purposes. (Eugenics, of course, has been thoroughly discredited by scientists. In its heyday, however, even Christians got on the Eugenics bandwagon.)

True, but also true of pretty much any other human institution. Why pick out the evils done in the name of science and not the many others?

Where is Skynet when we really need it? :wink:

Nowwaitaminute! Science is the one institution that is most likely to be questioning itself. Science is meant to be questioned. The first questioning comes from peer review, followed by years or decades of scrutiny, during which most results are found to be wrong, in degree if not entirely.

I’d say what you are describing sounds more like religion that science - but that’s not fair either. In my observation most followers of religion are willing to question their beliefs - in degree if not entirely. :wink:

2 Likes
3 Likes

True. And science is self-correcting.

2 Likes

Armchair science has a terrible track record. Do you know how many hundreds of thousands of anti-vax and flat earth YouTube videos have been produced by armchair scientists?

Also, Einstein was a full-fledged member of the academy – he gained entry by earning a Ph.D. in physics in 1905. So I do not consider him to be an “armchair scientist.”

Likewise, John Stewart Bell was a full-fledged member of the academy. He gained entry by earning a physics Ph.D. in 1956 from the University of Birmingham. So, like Einstein, I do not consider Bell to be an “armchair scientist.”

Unless you mean some other Bell.

Best,
Chris

5 Likes

No I’m 100% right. Brilliant people having whack ideas is quite normal.

1 Like

G K Chesterton has an interesting, humorous description of how we often attribute wisdom to people with one talent, in areas in which they have no talent (have you read “The Scandal of Father Brown”? In it, he describes how Americans ask a famous and beautiful actress for her opinion on evolution, etc). It seems that we should trust biologists where they biologize, etc (not a self-assigned designation, however)… However, that doesn’t make them untrustworthy as biologists, particularly if their colleagues agree with them. It does make us question ourselves in critiquing their biology, if our training is not there though–we have to judge ourselves by the same measure.

5 Likes

Great point. I had a similar conversation with someone about C19 response a few weeks ago. I naturally approach the advice from the scientists (not so much the politicians!) with trust, they were largely dismissive. The point I tried to make (hopefully graciously) is that many of these women and men will forget more about virology than I will learn in my entire lifetime. That should give me pause to question my intuition based Concerns and increase my trust that what they are saying is true.

In fact, I had to do this when the UK ok’ed restarting aeroplane travel. I ranted to my wife because I felt it was absurd to ban corporate singing in church but allow people to sit in an enclosed plane for hours at a time. My wife (who works for the National Institute of Health Research) graciously pointed out that aeroplanes make use of hospital grade air filters. And so, If pre-flight temp checked, Sat socially distanced, wearing a mask, near the back of the plane, air travel is rather low risk.

A humbling reminder that whilst one has the right to free speech, one risks looking a fool if that right is used to critique things one knows nothing about. :man_facepalming:

5 Likes

True, but whether evolution is under the domain of biology is questionable. It is not directly observable, at least not the kind that supposedly results in the modern species, and extrapolating models to explain present day biological data by processes in the distant past relies on mathematical disciplines outside of biology. In which case, we should listen not to biologists regarding evolution, but mathematicians.

And in general, I’ve found that GK Chesterton is relevant to everything. For example, his reason for becoming Christian, that all the skeptics were against it for opposite reasons, is very similar to why I became interested in ID.

In my experience, science does not live up to the self questioning ideal. Again those pesky humans and their egos, grants, and influence groups. They question themselves only within well defined parameters. I think Thomas Kuhn wrote a book on this topic, something about pairs of dimes or something.

I love Chesterton. However, the comparison is very apropos, isn’t it? Wouldn’t one expect a philosopher to exhibit reliability where he moralizes? Yet, while he’s full of deep theological truths, he’s got a strong vein of xenophobia in anti semitism and racism… I just finished the complete Father Brown, and while I enjoyed it very much, I squirmed over parts. That’s not to say future generations won’t shudder at what we write, too.

Can’t agree here. Have you read anything on biology? -that was my BA, rather than premed, and I highly recommend it. Genetics, pseudogenes, and the multiple other areas of relevance to evolution are only subgroups. Like Dobzhansky said, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” I’m not great on maths (calculus was terrific, but found other branches hard to enjoy), but have had some courses on them. I would not dare to critique some areas of maths till I’ve studied them. I invite you to really study biology.

2 Likes

I definitely agree with that. I’ve met many Christians who have never read much of anything concerning theology or evolution and I’ve met atheists who have never studied either out also.

1 Like