Because we learn from our mistakes in science, for the most part? That is, the thresholds to claim things are much higher (despite what dailymail-equivalents s

Because we learn from our mistakes in science, for the most part? That is, the thresholds to claim things are much higher (despite what dailymail-equivalents succeed in advertising on social networks), and the methodologies are able to be scrutinized almost in real time by the entire world (let's give a shout out to sci-hub there..) What I'm saying, is that yes there will have been mistakes made because science mostly makes mistakes (especially in the short term), but that the threshold to invalidate something that gets anchored nowadays is much higher than "not long ago" (on the order of a few human generations at most). "Race scientists who would think scientifically" back then are probably now diluted into "[other science] scientist who are aware of differences regarding their research", as evidenced by the two links I gave in the previous post. Whether it is AI researchers having to think a bit harder about how their training sets incorporate no black people, or anesthesiologists having to accommodate for a redhead's genetically higher tolerance to what they're being put under. Also, AFAIK, "race science" is a term that seems to have been coopted in the last few decades - the closest thing I could think of that was practiced might have been a biased anthropology, but otherwise it is scientific racism that was pervasive throughout the research of other fields, and not a field in and of itself. That's already a pretty major difference with gender studies, and therefore why I added the edit in my previous post. Gender studies as a field will produce research that makes valid claims with repeatability will survive, and research with biased claims or no repeatability. Time will kill the bad ideas without necessarily killing the field - or is physics worthless because we once attached meaning to Heliocentrism or considered that there was an aether for the transmission of light, or even simply because QM and relativity don't blend well ? Interestingly enough with your parallel, the foundations of scientific racism were intertwined with people perceiving race as a social construct over a biologically immutable one (Henri de Boulainvilliers). I suspect research of the nature to make a discernible definition emerge along those lines[0] will contribute to the evolution of the perception of the field and ultimately help the more useful research survive debates in the long run. [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29460079/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29460079/