5 ms·

The left often accuses the right of being anti-science -- e.g. on climate change, and now vaccines -- with good reason. But it's true that the left has its own

The left often accuses the right of being anti-science -- e.g. on climate change, and now vaccines -- with good reason. But it's true that the left has its own troubles with being opposed to science, and genetic effects on behavior is one example. Being egalitarian-minded, many progressives are inherently hostile to the idea that our personalities and behaviors may be hardwired on some level...except that they don't generally have trouble accepting it for, say, sexual preferences. So it's not even a consistent opposition. To me, the idea that our behavior is a combination of both nature and nurture seems kind of obvious, and the idea that we should refrain from scientific inquiry here because people might use the knowledge improperly feels...wrong. Very wrong.

TameAntelope 5y ago
Surely you see the negative consequences of past inquiry as, at the very least, a cautionary tale? The idea of, "Science at all cost!" should, by now, be thoroughly debunked for a number of very clear reasons, some specifically in this area of genetics and psychology (is there an exception for Poe's Law when talking about genetic behavioral outcomes?). We must be careful, and Dr. Harden does seem to understand that, which is good.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  That doesn't disagree with anything I said. Being careful in scientific inquiry is fine; saying, "we shouldn't research X at all, because maybe the knowledge would be used badly" is not. If there were only possible negatives, it might be more understandable, but of course that's not true. Learning more about how genetics affect behavior could, for example, lead to better treatments for behavioral disorders.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    Not every comment needs to disagree with its parent. :)
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      Fair. In my mind, there's a distinction between science-as-knowledge and science-as-practice. There are obviously many potentially unethical scientific practices, but I don't think gaining scientific knowledge can ever be wrong, in the sense of merely having the knowledge itself being wrong (of course, it's possible for it to have been gathered in an unethical way).
- NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
  The vast, vast, vast majority of the consequences of doing science like this have been positive. We are only able to sustain so many humans on this planet because we have bothered to understand stuff like this. You can't selectively understand it for plants and non-human animals, but not for humans. It is obvious to everyone that the same basic principles apply.
staysafeanon 5y ago
>But it's true that the left has its own troubles with being opposed to science, and genetic effects on behavior is one example. That's probably the only example that I can think of. Do you have any more? The right has tons of examples: evolution, climate change, vaccines, etc. Does the left have any except genetics?
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  Nuclear power and GMO's. And some particularly extreme social justice elements have decided that "objectivity" or "rationality" are part of white supremacy, or at least part of "white culture". Oh, I guess there's sex differences in personality/behavior/preferences, though arguably that's the same thing as genetic causes of personality.
  - staysafeanon 5y ago
    I appreciate the reply. I was not trolling in my OP, I was seriously curious since I couldn't recall any. Indeed nuclear power seems like an odd one to be opposed to. I think the idea is because we should be going forward with solar and wind? The social commentary is a not what I had in mind because I don't consider it a hard science like virology, biology, etc.
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      You don't consider objectivity to be part of the hard sciences? Because that's what some on the left are opposed to. That, or the scientific method more specifically. Granted, it's a fringe opinion for sure.
      - staysafeanon 5y ago
        No no, as in: gender/women's/political studies where that kinds of stuff comes out of isn't a hard science, so I'm not adding that in as "anti-science".
angelzen 5y ago
dis·sim·u·la·tion: concealment of one's thoughts, feelings, or character; pretense Watch how the most vocal egalitarians just happen to send their kids to the most elitist private school they can possibly afford and collect the most credentials proving they are vastly more capable than the flyover rubes.

TameAntelope 5y ago

Surely you see the negative consequences of past inquiry as, at the very least, a cautionary tale? The idea of, "Science at all cost!" should, by now, be thoroughly debunked for a number of very clear reasons, some specifically in this area of genetics and psychology (is there an exception for Poe's Law when talking about genetic behavioral outcomes?). We must be careful, and Dr. Harden does seem to understand that, which is good.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
That doesn't disagree with anything I said. Being careful in scientific inquiry is fine; saying, "we shouldn't research X at all, because maybe the knowledge would be used badly" is not. If there were only possible negatives, it might be more understandable, but of course that's not true. Learning more about how genetics affect behavior could, for example, lead to better treatments for behavioral disorders.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  Not every comment needs to disagree with its parent. :)
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    Fair. In my mind, there's a distinction between science-as-knowledge and science-as-practice. There are obviously many potentially unethical scientific practices, but I don't think gaining scientific knowledge can ever be wrong, in the sense of merely having the knowledge itself being wrong (of course, it's possible for it to have been gathered in an unethical way).
NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
The vast, vast, vast majority of the consequences of doing science like this have been positive. We are only able to sustain so many humans on this planet because we have bothered to understand stuff like this. You can't selectively understand it for plants and non-human animals, but not for humans. It is obvious to everyone that the same basic principles apply.

staysafeanon 5y ago

>But it's true that the left has its own troubles with being opposed to science, and genetic effects on behavior is one example. That's probably the only example that I can think of. Do you have any more? The right has tons of examples: evolution, climate change, vaccines, etc. Does the left have any except genetics?

TulliusCicero 5y ago
Nuclear power and GMO's. And some particularly extreme social justice elements have decided that "objectivity" or "rationality" are part of white supremacy, or at least part of "white culture". Oh, I guess there's sex differences in personality/behavior/preferences, though arguably that's the same thing as genetic causes of personality.
- staysafeanon 5y ago
  I appreciate the reply. I was not trolling in my OP, I was seriously curious since I couldn't recall any. Indeed nuclear power seems like an odd one to be opposed to. I think the idea is because we should be going forward with solar and wind? The social commentary is a not what I had in mind because I don't consider it a hard science like virology, biology, etc.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    You don't consider objectivity to be part of the hard sciences? Because that's what some on the left are opposed to. That, or the scientific method more specifically. Granted, it's a fringe opinion for sure.
    - staysafeanon 5y ago
      No no, as in: gender/women's/political studies where that kinds of stuff comes out of isn't a hard science, so I'm not adding that in as "anti-science".

angelzen 5y ago

dis·sim·u·la·tion: concealment of one's thoughts, feelings, or character; pretense Watch how the most vocal egalitarians just happen to send their kids to the most elitist private school they can possibly afford and collect the most credentials proving they are vastly more capable than the flyover rubes.