3 ms·

Gould and Lewontin weren't debating. They were engaging in academic politics. Arguing that an idea is wrong because it "lends support to scientific racism" is

by slibhb 5y ago

Gould and Lewontin weren't debating. They were engaging in academic politics. Arguing that an idea is wrong because it "lends support to scientific racism" is unscientific. To argue against an idea, demonstrate why it's wrong or offer a better alternative. "That's racist" is neither a scientific argument nor a serious one.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> Arguing that an idea is wrong because it "lends support to scientific racism" is unscientific. Since racism is itself not a scientific concept, arguments about this sort of thing are inherently never going to be scientific, but rather always political/philosophical. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Gould, Lewontin (or Wilson) engaging in such debates, which are as at least as important (and possibly more directly impactful) than the scientific ones. Political/philosophical debates do not involve questions of demonstrable "right" or "wrong", but rather are a stage for beliefs about the world and different notions of utility. You don't settle them by "demonstrating why it's wrong", or by "offering a better idea".
- slibhb 5y ago
  I agree with you. But if this isn't a scientific debate, why would it matter that Gould et al are "distinguished scientists at Harvard"? Shouldn't they separate their political-philosophical-religious views from their work as scientists? It isn't fruitful when one side is arguing science and the other is arguing politics.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Being able to state with some level of authority that current science does or does not support some claim can be useful even in the context of a non-scientific debate.
VictorPath 5y ago
> academic politics You see, Wilson, like Gallant in Highlights magazine cartoons, was someone who looked at the evidence, and used logic and the scientific method to lead him to his conclusions. He only sought the truth. Which in his case, was that the white race is superior to the black race. Gould and Lewontin were like Goofus. They were just engaging in academic politics. Easy case to win when one side is all science and logic and the other is "political". Not sure why everyone hasn't come around.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  > Which in his case, was that the white race is superior to the black race. You've been asked several times to provide a quote from Wilson's published works where he said this, both in this thread and previous ones. So far you have not. I think you should either provide such a quote or retract this claim.
pron 5y ago
That's not quite right. The problem with sociobiology or evolutionary psychology etc. is that it's either barely scientific to begin with, or has a scientific basis that is then prone to very unscientific extrapolations. I.e. some stages in the argument and or presentation are not scientifically established, and because they might lend support to scientific racism, people must be careful in presenting them or be partly responsible for how what they're saying is used. The criticism was levelled at Wilson's popular books, that made, according to other scientists, various leaps that weren't quite scientifically established.

by slibhb 5y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

> Arguing that an idea is wrong because it "lends support to scientific racism" is unscientific. Since racism is itself not a scientific concept, arguments about this sort of thing are inherently never going to be scientific, but rather always political/philosophical. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Gould, Lewontin (or Wilson) engaging in such debates, which are as at least as important (and possibly more directly impactful) than the scientific ones. Political/philosophical debates do not involve questions of demonstrable "right" or "wrong", but rather are a stage for beliefs about the world and different notions of utility. You don't settle them by "demonstrating why it's wrong", or by "offering a better idea".

slibhb 5y ago
I agree with you. But if this isn't a scientific debate, why would it matter that Gould et al are "distinguished scientists at Harvard"? Shouldn't they separate their political-philosophical-religious views from their work as scientists? It isn't fruitful when one side is arguing science and the other is arguing politics.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Being able to state with some level of authority that current science does or does not support some claim can be useful even in the context of a non-scientific debate.

VictorPath 5y ago

> academic politics You see, Wilson, like Gallant in Highlights magazine cartoons, was someone who looked at the evidence, and used logic and the scientific method to lead him to his conclusions. He only sought the truth. Which in his case, was that the white race is superior to the black race. Gould and Lewontin were like Goofus. They were just engaging in academic politics. Easy case to win when one side is all science and logic and the other is "political". Not sure why everyone hasn't come around.

Turing_Machine 5y ago
> Which in his case, was that the white race is superior to the black race. You've been asked several times to provide a quote from Wilson's published works where he said this, both in this thread and previous ones. So far you have not. I think you should either provide such a quote or retract this claim.

pron 5y ago

That's not quite right. The problem with sociobiology or evolutionary psychology etc. is that it's either barely scientific to begin with, or has a scientific basis that is then prone to very unscientific extrapolations. I.e. some stages in the argument and or presentation are not scientifically established, and because they might lend support to scientific racism, people must be careful in presenting them or be partly responsible for how what they're saying is used. The criticism was levelled at Wilson's popular books, that made, according to other scientists, various leaps that weren't quite scientifically established.