3 ms·
From the article: > A far more sensible approach, which many scientists and philosophers have taken over the years, is to emphasise that claims about biologica
by tony_cannistra 4y ago
From the article:
> A far more sensible approach, which many scientists and philosophers have taken over the years, is to emphasise that claims about biological group differences have no necessary implications.
Really? emphasize? Then what? You can emphasize all you want, but cultural forces will do whatever they please.
If cultural forces (racism) exist that permit (encourage!) mis-intepretation of research results to disenfranchise entire swaths of humanity, then it will. It doesn't matter what a Substack blogger says.
Shouldn't the insitutions responsible for creating this knowledge in the first place have a responsibility to ensure its ethical employment?
Wouldn't (perhaps) one methodology here be to agree that certain types of scientific inquiry, due to the potential for widespread harm, are to be treated differently than the rest?
- MichaelCollins 4y ago> "emphasise?" If you're objecting to the way he spelled this word, note that the author is British: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Carl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Carl
- tony_cannistra 4y agoNo, the spelling is not relevant. I removed the quotes.
- gadflyinyoureye 4y agoNo. There is no way for them determine ethical employment. Just because someone racist wants to use some research for a racist claim doesn't mean all researchers should abandon pursuits. Don't fear racists. Fear people making policy from their views.
- tony_cannistra 4y ago> Don't fear racists. Fear people making policy from their views. And when they're the same?
- themitigating 4y agoThey are always the same? Obviously not so you're wrong
- gadflyinyoureye 4y agoThen work against the policy. If you can't defend against a racist policy in this day and age, maybe the "science" is right. That would be some "science".
- slowmovintarget 4y agoIn the same way that censoring data to make the Pope happy is bad for science, censoring data for fear it treads on any ideology is bad for science. The inoculation against stupid policy is education, not censorship.