4 ms·
> Some of us are actually interested in truth, which cannot be obtained if one perspective is irrationally forbidden as taboo. Two things to say here. First,
by TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
> Some of us are actually interested in truth, which cannot be obtained if one perspective is irrationally forbidden as taboo.
Two things to say here.
First, truth is in the eye of the beholder, even in science. There is still plenty of research into discredited theories because the proponents don't care, and they can recruit new believers by being selective in their presentation of the evidence, and screaming that the opposition is irrational.
Second, what is irrational about not pursuing lines of research that one considers will inevitably lead to eugenics? Is ethics in scientific research irrational? Science is not some perfectly neutral abstract playing field, it has real impacts on the world.
- lopmotr 7y agoOn your first point, the idea that genetics influences behavior is not discredited. On your second point, what's wrong with eugenics? Even if it is wrong, who decides what knowledge falls into that category of inevitably leading to bad things? Do we need to ask the pope?
- allovernow 7y agoSpace research will eventually lead to space war. Encryption shields theives, pedophiles, and terrorists. Nuclear energy came with the nuclear bomb. It's the job of the scientific establishment to pursue knowledge. It is the domain of social policy to set protections against downsides. You are rationalizing what amounts to a strong institutional bias. That's bad science and will be bad for anything built on that incomplete picture, including official and unnoficial social policy.