4 ms·
He was vindicated by modern science. His "delusions" were that epigenetics exist and are heritable. (His opponents took a polar, more hardline stance that only
by otabdeveloper4 5y ago
He was vindicated by modern science.
His "delusions" were that epigenetics exist and are heritable. (His opponents took a polar, more hardline stance that only genetic information is relevant for phenotype expression.)
See more here: https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=heritable%20epigenetics https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=heritable%20epigene...
- thriftwy 5y agoIf only he did not resort to using political means instead of science to push his views, he could have been considered a visionary (like Vernadsky or Oparin). Instead, he's just a criminal and a fraud.
- otabdeveloper4 5y agoYes, it was a story of political conflict, not a story about science.
- simonh 5y ago>He was vindicated by modern science. He denied that genetic heritability existed and that all characteristics were propagated epigenetically. That's hardly been vindicated. In practice his theories and practical policies were utterly disastrous. It is true that since then we have found some mechanisms by which some traits can propagate epigenetically, but characterising that as vindicating Lysenkoism is absurd.
- thesz 5y agoI believe he denied existence of genes, not heretability of traits.
- mannykannot 5y agoHis theories were mostly pseudoscientific nonsense - but that alone is not particularly harmful. What was evil about him is that he literally destroyed other people’s lives, his most prominent victim being Vavilov.
- otabdeveloper4 5y agoDNA wasn't yet discovered when he was alive, and "genes" were an abstract philosophical concept.
- simonh 5y agoThat’s why I said genetic heritability.
- QuadmasterXLII 5y agothats the difference between science and other realms of human knowledge: it doesn’t matter how you can spin his words, because his theory made inaccurate predictions.