Should lay people listen to experts when they are horribly wrong, i.e. racism and eugenics?
The application of science is never up to scientists. People with political or financial power decide what gets funded. I donât know but I would bet eugenics was not an initiative of scientists, but rather was initiated by a funder or politician. Scientists are no more likely to do the moral thing than anyone else. Generally speaking they have very little political power except where that has been designated by those in political power.
Iâd thought of citing Gould as that rare kind, but then again I donât know just how cutting edge he was as a researcher. But he sure had a gift as a communicator, an exceptional exception.
In the scenarios I list, scientists claimed eugenics was necessary to save humanity and that africans were inferior animals. Should lay people accept the claims of these experts?
If you are trying to make a point, why not say it?
I did, a couple comments ago, which people disagrees with. This question supports my claim that the experts are known to sometimes be dramatically and deathly wrong, so lay people should not rely blindly upon the claims of experts, especially when the implications can be life threatening. Seems pretty obvious and uncontroversial, no? Germans should have ignored their scientific experts who claimed Jews were subhuman, right?
Experts can be wrong. But that doesnât mean our own untutored intuition would often be less wrong. The trick is to know when to disqualify ones own opinion and when not to.
Yes, no disagreement there. My only contention is scientosts are not the new priesthood, whose pronouncements must be accepted without question. I believe science benefits from having to address skepticism at both the professional and lay level, and should encourage such questioning from all quarters. That, ironically, can only serve to make the authority of science stronger.
I find scientists I encounter here to be exemplary in their openness to critical challenge. Medical doctors vary in how open they are to including patients in their own treatment. But I donât regard scientists or doctors as a priesthood. Heck I donât even regard those with advanced theological degrees as a priesthood.
Some scientists here more than others
Of course, I rather doubt that Hitler studied the matter and after careful consideration based on findings from the scientific community, decided that genocidal measures where indicated. I think it more likely that the mindset came first, then he found some scientists to support his presuppositions, as several have discussed here and on other posts. Mortonâs demon at work.
but you would still agree the lay person should have disagreed with tge nazi scientific experts on the jewish question, right?
anyways there are lots of examples like this in the history of science to give one pause ascribing too much aithority to experts
i donât believe this is controversial
The point is, the scientific experts were not the reason they held those positions. You can always find an random scientist here and there with bizarre beliefs that make no sense to agree with your position. We see that all the time today, not only in the creation realm, but in virtually every aspect of life, be it global warming, snakebite treatment, or duct tape adhesion.
You do make a good point that sometimes wrong ideas become mainstream. Science has been far better at correcting those things than other areas of life.
32 posts were split to a new topic: What is the relationship between the theory of evolution and racism?
Interesting! You challenged them on brain surgery or Covid? The latter is not unexpected.
Some people have reached prior conclusions, and like drug seekers looking for a indulgent doctor, are looking for an expert to validate them. Where there is a demand, there is always a supply.
Neurology. They were too smart for their own good : )
That negative trend is coupled to a blind acceptance of whatever conforms to their pre-existing political views.
Racism and eugenics has nothing to do with science. Who should or shouldnât have children is a matter of politics and ethics, not science.
The problem is that much of what science has to counter isnât skepticism. What they face is misinformation, dogmatic denial, and politically/religiously motivated propaganda. This movement to cast doubt on science itself is pushed by people who use terms like âscientists are not the new priesthoodâ and try to paint science with the brush of eugenics and racism. Anything to distract and misinform.