6 ms·

But, for the sake of argument (although it makes me sick to my stomach)... Given this strong emotional motivation, do you really think you can objectively eval

But, for the sake of argument (although it makes me sick to my stomach)... Given this strong emotional motivation, do you really think you can objectively evaluate the truth of these claims without bias? I certainly don't. So to answer your question: scientific racism often has motivations that are completely different from those behind most science. Juxtaposing this with your term "hate group", I assume you mean the motivation is some sort of collectivist hatred or other negative feelings? In that case, it's pretty clear that you intend this to be a mere ad-hominem attack. You simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a person might hold certain positive beliefs without also holding certain normative beliefs. Essentially: "Anyone who believes in evolution must therefore worship the devil. The church opposes both of these things!" Have fun with that. If you ever want to understand the world better, consider the possibility that atheists are not necessarily satanists.

pron 10y ago
> do you really think you can objectively evaluate the truth of these claims without bias? Yes, more or less, just as many kinds of professionals are required to do the same. But regardless, my entire point is that the truth of these claims is the least important thing about them, just as the interesting question about a wager between two college students of whether a vagrant would shit his pants or not when they set him on fire is not which of them was right. > I assume you mean the motivation is some sort of collectivist hatred or other negative feeling I did not study psychology but history, and I'm not interested in feelings but in the distribution of power. Yes, the motivation is to justify and perpetuate a distribution of power that's favorable to the groups where those ideas are found. > In that case, it's pretty clear that you intend this to be a mere ad-hominem attack. You simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a person might hold certain positive beliefs without also holding certain normative beliefs. Not at all. When discussing the history of ideas we do not attempt to track every single person's motivations, just as I don't suppose you "refuse to acknowledge the possibility" of some black woman being smarter than some Asian man. Your beliefs -- as I hope you know -- are not only not unique at this point in time, they echo almost precisely very old and well studied ones, and thus can be and indeed have been discussed in general without attributing anything to you personally. Even in proper science (leaving aside the question of whether a certain strain of scientific racism qualifies as such or not), researchers often discuss why they're interested in a specific question (and need to justify the importance of their research in order receive grants). So the question of what motivates certain people to be interested in studying and publicly writing about any scientific topic is not only reasonable and pertinent, but a fairly common one. Even on a personal level, a scientist often needs to answer it to herself and to others. Also, I am absolutely not attacking you, but merely pointing out that the name of the school of thought your beliefs (in this context) belong to is scientific racism. Perhaps now that you know what your philosophy is called, you can more easily find academic discussions about it if you are interested in learning more. But just as I wouldn't be able to fairly say, "people here are call me names like billionaire", after telling them I have billions in the bank regardless of my personal feelings towards the name, I don't think you get to say that people "call you racist" when it is you who present yourself as such (and not in any subtle way, or one that's open to interpretation), even though it turns out that you don't like the title.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  But regardless, my entire point is that the truth of these claims is the least important thing about them... That much is clear, and the source of our differences. I do care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts. Yes, the motivation is to justify and perpetuate a distribution of power that's favorable to the groups where those ideas are found. And the motivation for studying evolution is to reduce people's faith in the one true god, and prevent them from getting to heaven. Therefore I can refer to an individual evolutionist as a satanist. When discussing the history of ideas we do not attempt to track every single person's motivations You aren't discussing the history of ideas. You are discussing specifically whether I am a "scientific racist" and "white supremacist". And you've defined these terms as people having specific motivations which I don't share.
  - pron 10y ago
    > That much is clear, and the source of our differences. I do care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts. That cannot possibly be our difference because I also care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts. I have no reason to believe that I care about reality any less than you do. There are only two differences between our views : 1. I do not think there is currently any evidence whatsoever that innate differences between human races are a significant causal factor in the observed power difference, and 2. I think that in the whole of science there are few questions that are less interesting. In fact, while I have occasionally found myself pondering scientific questions that can be said to be utterly ridiculous and pointless, the thought of whether blacks are less intelligent than whites has never even crossed my mind. When a question does cross my mind, I always -- always -- ask myself why is it important to me that I should spend time pondering it, let alone writing about it. I think that in all of science, pretty much the only time uninteresting questions (i.e., those not given explicit justification for study by scientists) become interesting is when there is incontrovertible evidence for something totally surprising (even if uninteresting). I don't think that this is the case with scientific racism, either. I wonder why it is that this question is so important to you, that you'd rather spend your time writing about it, than say, how cats purr or why we yawn. > You are discussing specifically whether I am a "scientific racist" and "white supremacist". And you've defined these terms as people having specific motivations which I don't share. I'm afraid I don't think it is possible to believe whites are innately more intelligent than blacks and not be a white supremacist (at least not without some clearly spelled out motivation), or to believe that differences in traits such as intelligence between races are either supported by science or should be studied by science without being a scientific racist, sorry. I sort-of understand your desire to both have a billion dollars and yet not be considered a billionaire, but I'm just not sure how this can be done. You may claims that scientific racism is an interesting and valid scientific discipline or that your motivations are pure etc., but you cannot argue that you are not a scientific racist if those are your views. Also, I did not define scientific racism as having specific motivations. I restated the well accepted -- and, AFAIK, the only definition of scientific racism, as the belief that some races are innately superior or inferior to others (usually in qualities that coincide with social power) and that this can and/or should be proven with science. I added, in response to your question, that it has been well established (although that is not the definition) that scientific racism is an all-too-familiar tool being used in the same ways, making the same assertions, time and again by people with similar motivations. Your personal motivations are your own business, but I wonder if you've asked yourself why you are personally so drawn to such questions, especially as most people (even those who care a lot about reality) aren't.

pron 10y ago

> do you really think you can objectively evaluate the truth of these claims without bias? Yes, more or less, just as many kinds of professionals are required to do the same. But regardless, my entire point is that the truth of these claims is the least important thing about them, just as the interesting question about a wager between two college students of whether a vagrant would shit his pants or not when they set him on fire is not which of them was right. > I assume you mean the motivation is some sort of collectivist hatred or other negative feeling I did not study psychology but history, and I'm not interested in feelings but in the distribution of power. Yes, the motivation is to justify and perpetuate a distribution of power that's favorable to the groups where those ideas are found. > In that case, it's pretty clear that you intend this to be a mere ad-hominem attack. You simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a person might hold certain positive beliefs without also holding certain normative beliefs. Not at all. When discussing the history of ideas we do not attempt to track every single person's motivations, just as I don't suppose you "refuse to acknowledge the possibility" of some black woman being smarter than some Asian man. Your beliefs -- as I hope you know -- are not only not unique at this point in time, they echo almost precisely very old and well studied ones, and thus can be and indeed have been discussed in general without attributing anything to you personally. Even in proper science (leaving aside the question of whether a certain strain of scientific racism qualifies as such or not), researchers often discuss why they're interested in a specific question (and need to justify the importance of their research in order receive grants). So the question of what motivates certain people to be interested in studying and publicly writing about any scientific topic is not only reasonable and pertinent, but a fairly common one. Even on a personal level, a scientist often needs to answer it to herself and to others. Also, I am absolutely not attacking you, but merely pointing out that the name of the school of thought your beliefs (in this context) belong to is scientific racism. Perhaps now that you know what your philosophy is called, you can more easily find academic discussions about it if you are interested in learning more. But just as I wouldn't be able to fairly say, "people here are call me names like billionaire", after telling them I have billions in the bank regardless of my personal feelings towards the name, I don't think you get to say that people "call you racist" when it is you who present yourself as such (and not in any subtle way, or one that's open to interpretation), even though it turns out that you don't like the title.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
But regardless, my entire point is that the truth of these claims is the least important thing about them... That much is clear, and the source of our differences. I do care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts. Yes, the motivation is to justify and perpetuate a distribution of power that's favorable to the groups where those ideas are found. And the motivation for studying evolution is to reduce people's faith in the one true god, and prevent them from getting to heaven. Therefore I can refer to an individual evolutionist as a satanist. When discussing the history of ideas we do not attempt to track every single person's motivations You aren't discussing the history of ideas. You are discussing specifically whether I am a "scientific racist" and "white supremacist". And you've defined these terms as people having specific motivations which I don't share.
- pron 10y ago
  > That much is clear, and the source of our differences. I do care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts. That cannot possibly be our difference because I also care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts. I have no reason to believe that I care about reality any less than you do. There are only two differences between our views : 1. I do not think there is currently any evidence whatsoever that innate differences between human races are a significant causal factor in the observed power difference, and 2. I think that in the whole of science there are few questions that are less interesting. In fact, while I have occasionally found myself pondering scientific questions that can be said to be utterly ridiculous and pointless, the thought of whether blacks are less intelligent than whites has never even crossed my mind. When a question does cross my mind, I always -- always -- ask myself why is it important to me that I should spend time pondering it, let alone writing about it. I think that in all of science, pretty much the only time uninteresting questions (i.e., those not given explicit justification for study by scientists) become interesting is when there is incontrovertible evidence for something totally surprising (even if uninteresting). I don't think that this is the case with scientific racism, either. I wonder why it is that this question is so important to you, that you'd rather spend your time writing about it, than say, how cats purr or why we yawn. > You are discussing specifically whether I am a "scientific racist" and "white supremacist". And you've defined these terms as people having specific motivations which I don't share. I'm afraid I don't think it is possible to believe whites are innately more intelligent than blacks and not be a white supremacist (at least not without some clearly spelled out motivation), or to believe that differences in traits such as intelligence between races are either supported by science or should be studied by science without being a scientific racist, sorry. I sort-of understand your desire to both have a billion dollars and yet not be considered a billionaire, but I'm just not sure how this can be done. You may claims that scientific racism is an interesting and valid scientific discipline or that your motivations are pure etc., but you cannot argue that you are not a scientific racist if those are your views. Also, I did not define scientific racism as having specific motivations. I restated the well accepted -- and, AFAIK, the only definition of scientific racism, as the belief that some races are innately superior or inferior to others (usually in qualities that coincide with social power) and that this can and/or should be proven with science. I added, in response to your question, that it has been well established (although that is not the definition) that scientific racism is an all-too-familiar tool being used in the same ways, making the same assertions, time and again by people with similar motivations. Your personal motivations are your own business, but I wonder if you've asked yourself why you are personally so drawn to such questions, especially as most people (even those who care a lot about reality) aren't.