4 ms·

You make it sound like a dichotomy when there is none. Not believing the truth does not mean inventing lies. It does not even go that far as to be able to use t

You make it sound like a dichotomy when there is none. Not believing the truth does not mean inventing lies. It does not even go that far as to be able to use the words "truth" and "belief". Research into such topics should be actively discouraged, suppressed and censured. There was a lot of research into eugenics in the early 20th century. With good reason no one talks about it. I repeat - science does not exist in a vacuum.

PeterisP 7y ago
I very, very strongly and fundamentally disagree with the notion that "Research into such topics should be actively discouraged, suppressed and censured." I'm aware of all kinds of pseudoscience with false claims under the 'eugenics' label, not only in early 20th century but also in current times. I don't consider it that relevant to this debate - it's evil to discriminate against people based on belonging to some arbitrary group, period - no matter if the group average of some characteristics is different or not compared to the population mean. The notion of liberalism is based on equal rights and value of all people, not on the (shaky) notion that all people groups have equal ability in all areas. The underlying facts didn't matter much for the evil actions in early 20th century; if the facts don't match desired results, the tyrants will invent some and use propaganda to announce them - the evil deeds weren't motivated by the (pseudo)science, instead that (pseudo)science was used as a tool just as everything else was during that time. However, there are legitimate medical goals for researching how genetics affects intelligence, there's some underlying truth on what factors matter and which do not affect certain traits, and those truths should be discovered. Not only people should be free to research that, they should even be encouraged to do so. Yes, science does not exist in a vacuum. Suppressing science causes all kinds of harmful consequences to society. That which can be destroyed by the truth should be - if some policy is based on shaky assumptions, then these assumptions should be questioned to evaluate if they're actually true or not, that's how we get rid of misguided policies and ascertain ourselves of correct ones. It appears to me that you consider that possible harmful social consequences of knowing and disseminating certain facts about reality are inherently much more important than the facts themselves, and that it not only justifies that "Research into such topics should be actively discouraged, suppressed and censured" but makes it a moral imperative to do so. I believe that the value of understanding reality is inherently much more important than the social consequences of discussing that new understanding. I believe that the social consequences definitely do not justify that "Research into such topics should be actively discouraged, suppressed and censured", even more, I strongly believe that statements like "Research into such topics should be actively discouraged, suppressed and censured" should themselves be actively discouraged, suppressed and censured; that it's a moral imperative to fight against that notion of suppressing research for social reasons. So if I understand you correctly, then I don't think that we're going to have a productive conversation here as it seems that our core assumptions and values are quite divergent, and it's probably best to agree to disagree.

PeterisP 7y ago

I very, very strongly and fundamentally disagree with the notion that "Research into such topics should be actively discouraged, suppressed and censured." I'm aware of all kinds of pseudoscience with false claims under the 'eugenics' label, not only in early 20th century but also in current times. I don't consider it that relevant to this debate - it's evil to discriminate against people based on belonging to some arbitrary group, period - no matter if the group average of some characteristics is different or not compared to the population mean. The notion of liberalism is based on equal rights and value of all people, not on the (shaky) notion that all people groups have equal ability in all areas. The underlying facts didn't matter much for the evil actions in early 20th century; if the facts don't match desired results, the tyrants will invent some and use propaganda to announce them - the evil deeds weren't motivated by the (pseudo)science, instead that (pseudo)science was used as a tool just as everything else was during that time. However, there are legitimate medical goals for researching how genetics affects intelligence, there's some underlying truth on what factors matter and which do not affect certain traits, and those truths should be discovered. Not only people should be free to research that, they should even be encouraged to do so. Yes, science does not exist in a vacuum. Suppressing science causes all kinds of harmful consequences to society. That which can be destroyed by the truth should be - if some policy is based on shaky assumptions, then these assumptions should be questioned to evaluate if they're actually true or not, that's how we get rid of misguided policies and ascertain ourselves of correct ones. It appears to me that you consider that possible harmful social consequences of knowing and disseminating certain facts about reality are inherently much more important than the facts themselves, and that it not only justifies that "Research into such topics should be actively discouraged, suppressed and censured" but makes it a moral imperative to do so. I believe that the value of understanding reality is inherently much more important than the social consequences of discussing that new understanding. I believe that the social consequences definitely do not justify that "Research into such topics should be actively discouraged, suppressed and censured", even more, I strongly believe that statements like "Research into such topics should be actively discouraged, suppressed and censured" should themselves be actively discouraged, suppressed and censured; that it's a moral imperative to fight against that notion of suppressing research for social reasons. So if I understand you correctly, then I don't think that we're going to have a productive conversation here as it seems that our core assumptions and values are quite divergent, and it's probably best to agree to disagree.