4 ms·

I’d be more than a little concerned that this will turn into the “journal of not considering confounds around race/gender” and/or the “journal of old eugenics i

by 542458 8y ago

I’d be more than a little concerned that this will turn into the “journal of not considering confounds around race/gender” and/or the “journal of old eugenics ideas that were already rejected years ago”. There are certainly parts of certain fields that suffer from too much groupthink or trend chasing, but I feel that this is putting the cart before the horse: ideas don’t gain merit because they’re controversial, they have merit despite or irrespective of that fact. It’s also worth noting that several large and reputable publications have already set up subcommittees dedicated to handling controversial ideas. So the idea of a venue for controversial ideas isn’t really all that novel. And while I’ve seen pubs get rejected from one venue or another for being controversial, I’ve never heard of a solid scientific pub getting blackballed from everything. Anything with even the slightest bit of rigour can almost certainly find a venue somewhere - there are a lot of second and third tier publications out there already without a lot to lose.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
otakucode 8y ago
As it always does, it will boil down to how rigorous they are about the science. Eugenics fails not because it's controversial or immoral but because it's wrong and is based upon fundamental misunderstandings of how DNA works. There are certainly types of research that will benefit from being able to be published without worrying about committing career suicide. Several years ago a relatively new sex researchers did a study that showed significant reduction in depression among women who has unprotected sex with their male partner over women using condoms. This is simple biology, but it destroyed his career. The number of people worried that the public are too stupid to be trusted to make their own decisions and scared that such 'dangerous information' might lead to less frequent condom use and wider spread of STDs was much greater than the number of people who were glad to know some more about human biology.
- asianthrowaway 8y ago
  How is eugenics wrong (in the scientific sense, not the moral sense)? It seems to work pretty well with plants and some animals (dogs, horses, etc.)
  - genericone 8y ago
    If you take morality from everything, nothing is wrong, nothing has ever been wrong, nothing will ever be wrong, everything simply has-been/is/will-be. That's not the kind of world people want to live in.
    - asianthrowaway 8y ago
      Oh don't get me wrong, I personally oppose eugenics from a moral standpoint. I was just quibbling with the assertion that eugenics does not work because of a "misunderstanding on how DNA works". If that's the case I'd like him to explain how we have crops and domesticated animals.
  - monk22 8y ago
    look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passing_of_the_Great_Race https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passing_of_the_Great_Race the argument is based on pseudo-science saying the "nordic" race is superior therefore killing babies of every other race is ok
    - asianthrowaway 8y ago
      That book is about the application of eugenic policies to spread the nordic race, which the author alleges is superior to other races. I agree that it is pseudoscientific in regard to its theories of racial superiority, but it does not refute the validity of eugenics as a scientific practice. In fact, you may not realize it, but most western countries already implement eugenic policies. For instance, in my country, most fetuses which are identified as suffering from Down syndrome are aborted, and that practice is encouraged by doctors. This has led to a significant decrease in the number of people affected with that condition. You may not think of it this way, but that is a form of eugenics.
rmtech 8y ago
> journal of old eugenics ideas that were already rejected years ago Why were such ideas rejected? Is there a scientific case for rejecting them? Science is an ongoing process, there is no central authority to reject sinful ideas which is what your comment indicates that you would like, which underlines the need for such a journal.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- manicdee 8y ago
  There's no scientific case supporting eugenics. Eugenics is not a scientific idea.
  - rmtech 8y ago
    > Eugenics is not a scientific idea. can you give the definition of eugenics that you're using?
    - manicdee 8y ago
      Eugenics is basically applying selective breeding or even genetic engineering to humans in order to grow towards a “better” human population. This uses scientific concepts such as genetics to implement a political or ideological goal. Eugenics is not science whichever way you carve it up.
jimjansen1 8y ago
More like the "Journal of truths that are uncomfortable for SJWs" Your attitude precisely demonstrates the need for such a journal.

by 542458 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

otakucode 8y ago

As it always does, it will boil down to how rigorous they are about the science. Eugenics fails not because it's controversial or immoral but because it's wrong and is based upon fundamental misunderstandings of how DNA works. There are certainly types of research that will benefit from being able to be published without worrying about committing career suicide. Several years ago a relatively new sex researchers did a study that showed significant reduction in depression among women who has unprotected sex with their male partner over women using condoms. This is simple biology, but it destroyed his career. The number of people worried that the public are too stupid to be trusted to make their own decisions and scared that such 'dangerous information' might lead to less frequent condom use and wider spread of STDs was much greater than the number of people who were glad to know some more about human biology.

asianthrowaway 8y ago
How is eugenics wrong (in the scientific sense, not the moral sense)? It seems to work pretty well with plants and some animals (dogs, horses, etc.)
- genericone 8y ago
  If you take morality from everything, nothing is wrong, nothing has ever been wrong, nothing will ever be wrong, everything simply has-been/is/will-be. That's not the kind of world people want to live in.
  - asianthrowaway 8y ago
    Oh don't get me wrong, I personally oppose eugenics from a moral standpoint. I was just quibbling with the assertion that eugenics does not work because of a "misunderstanding on how DNA works". If that's the case I'd like him to explain how we have crops and domesticated animals.
- monk22 8y ago
  look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passing_of_the_Great_Race https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passing_of_the_Great_Race the argument is based on pseudo-science saying the "nordic" race is superior therefore killing babies of every other race is ok
  - asianthrowaway 8y ago
    That book is about the application of eugenic policies to spread the nordic race, which the author alleges is superior to other races. I agree that it is pseudoscientific in regard to its theories of racial superiority, but it does not refute the validity of eugenics as a scientific practice. In fact, you may not realize it, but most western countries already implement eugenic policies. For instance, in my country, most fetuses which are identified as suffering from Down syndrome are aborted, and that practice is encouraged by doctors. This has led to a significant decrease in the number of people affected with that condition. You may not think of it this way, but that is a form of eugenics.

rmtech 8y ago

> journal of old eugenics ideas that were already rejected years ago Why were such ideas rejected? Is there a scientific case for rejecting them? Science is an ongoing process, there is no central authority to reject sinful ideas which is what your comment indicates that you would like, which underlines the need for such a journal.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
manicdee 8y ago
There's no scientific case supporting eugenics. Eugenics is not a scientific idea.
- rmtech 8y ago
  > Eugenics is not a scientific idea. can you give the definition of eugenics that you're using?
  - manicdee 8y ago
    Eugenics is basically applying selective breeding or even genetic engineering to humans in order to grow towards a “better” human population. This uses scientific concepts such as genetics to implement a political or ideological goal. Eugenics is not science whichever way you carve it up.

jimjansen1 8y ago

More like the "Journal of truths that are uncomfortable for SJWs" Your attitude precisely demonstrates the need for such a journal.