3 ms·

>That would be because sufficiently controversial conclusions in the social sciences can upend social stability (endangering the ability of social science work

>That would be because sufficiently controversial conclusions in the social sciences can upend social stability (endangering the ability of social science work to be performed) and serve as the justification for the infringement of human rights. This is assuming the current incorrect findings aren't being used as justifications for infringement of human rights currently. For example findings that might relate to rehabilitation for crimes and how long we sentence someone to prison, or if we even sentence someone to prison at all. Findings related to forced institutionalization of someone deemed too mentally ill to be allowed their freedom. Findings that are used to justify existing laws that see people put in prison for things they perhaps shouldn't be. Using such an impeccable standard for changes when such wasn't used for the existing social structure isn't justifiable.

shkkmo 7y ago
> For example findings that might relate to rehabilitation for crimes and how long we sentence someone to prison, or if we even sentence someone to prison at all. Findings related to forced institutionalization of someone deemed too mentally ill to be allowed their freedom. Before cargo cult science becomes a problem here, we need to actually accept and adopt evidence based management of these institutions. Currently policies in these areas are primarily driven by tradition, rhetoric and anecdotes, not scientific inquiry.
bsanr2 7y ago
>This is assuming the current incorrect findings aren't being used as justifications for infringement of human rights currently. ...No, it doesn't assume that. The notion that circumstances are imperfect doesn't doesn't preclude a drastic change from making things worse.