4 ms·

Eugenics and Phrenology were very relevant at the time and used as a scientific basis to justify many attrocities. It's important to remember that science evol

by vasco 3y ago

Eugenics and Phrenology were very relevant at the time and used as a scientific basis to justify many attrocities. It's important to remember that science evolves, and what we "know" to be part of scientific knowledge today might be debunked in the future. Specially with the state of peer review in the social sciences my feeling is many things that are said to be scientific fact today will be proven wrong later, including whole fields. Easier to trust more fundamental aspects of math and physics, but even in those fields, on the bleeding edge many things can change. The current zeitgeist is that science is as holy as religion used to be, and because there's so many anti-science people gaining a voice on the internet, it's sometimes easy to forget that we're not perfect at science and we also make wrong turns while we trudge our way through the scientific method.

ruszki 3y ago
Pseudoscience like eugenics is just feelings packaged as science.
- vasco 3y ago
  Well yes, and that is obvious today, at the time they were reputable fields, just look it up. And if you read that in history, what does that tell you about the present and the possibility of it being the case with some fields today? My point is obviously not to defend those fields, but to say that pseudoscience maskerading as science isn't a thing that can only happen in the past. It's a bit strange to learn about the fact that it happened before yet not accept the possibility that some of the things we call science today, aren't.
  - ruszki 3y ago
    What does reputability do with science? After 1915, it’s pseudoscience, regardless of who says it.
- concordDance 3y ago
  This depends a lot on what you means by "eugenics". Some people use the word to be a normative word (a statement about what should be) others positive word (a statement about what IS or could be). E.g. "We can use CRISPR and genetic screening to make people resistant to HIV" vs "we should do so". The former is a question of fact ("is this possible?") though often with a bunch of unspoken subquestions ("can we do this change without causing incidental genetic changes or damaging the egg?") and in the realm of science while the latter is a question of policy and feelings (how much do we want HIV resistance? What is the price we're willing to pay/risk we're willing to take? Does deliberately altering humanity open a can of worms best left unopened?). Conflation between normative and positive meanings are quite common across a wide variety of domains and can cause substantial confusion as two people can think they're talking about the same thing but actually aren't. Even in the "should" case there's a bunch of confusion as to what sort of things should count as "eugenics", with some people wanting the term to apply only to coercive measures and others wanting the term to apply to any deliberate changes to a population's gene pool (and theres the grey area in the middle where financial incentives happen). Note: A lot of politically fraught words will have a number of similar but different meanings as various interest groups fight over them. From "war" and "violence" to "culture" and "science" to "person" and "rights".
TeMPOraL 3y ago
> used as a scientific basis to justify many attrocities That's the operating phrase though. Throughout history, atrocities were justified using whatever was seen as the higher authority at the moment - the will of a deity, the words of a prophet, the decree of a king, appeal to destiny or legacy, and yes, science too. Especially in the early XX century, when science was kicking into gear, and delivering miracles left and right for everyone to see - it was easy tool to abuse to justify whatever the leaders wanted or needed to. Doesn't mean the science itself is at fault here. I didn't read up much on phrenology so I won't comment on it, but RE eugenics, I see it as a mix of good and bad ideas that sprouted in an environment full of aforementioned hatred and otherwise devoid of moral and ethical boundaries[0]. I feel it's more of a historical coincidence of fledging science and then-contemporary zeitgeist, rather than an innate feature of science. The resulting effect is that even the word itself - eugenics - casts a long shadow on research in fields like genetics, medicine and economics. There are whole subsections of those fields you can't discuss in polite company, 'lest someone rounds your thinking off to "eugenics" and therefore paint you as "nazi". This is a bad outcome. > Easier to trust more fundamental aspects of math and physics, but even in those fields, on the bleeding edge many things can change. That's true. There's this thing though. I can't put my finger on it, so it might be just a benefit of hindsight, but there's a notably different feeling when you reason from current state of knowledge in a correct way, vs. when you abuse it to justify whatever self-serving or atrocious idea you want. The atrocities committed under the label "eugenics" feel very much like the latter. But again, this may be just hindsight, and we may all be vulnerable to a new flavor of that mistake today. -- [0] - Notably, some of which were developed only after those events. E.g. the Nazis weren't the only ones willing to do brutal, lethal scientific experiments on POWs, and, to my understanding, the consensus and principle to not do that was achieved in response to the atrocities of WWII.
- vasco 3y ago
  Yes I didn't mean to say it was at fault, I was mostly bringing to light that _at the time_ the people doing these things thought they were being scientific about it, or convinced themselves of it. I agree with all your points in the follow up and think about it in very similar ways.
concordDance 3y ago
[flagged]
- dang 3y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    For calibration purposes so i can get a better feel for the threshhold for "substantial", could you tell me whether the unsubstantive proportion is more like 1%, 10%, 50% or 90%? (I'll understand completely if you don't have the time to reply though)
    - pvg 3y ago
      0% race science apologia is a good metric to aim for in comments.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    Here's my attempt at a substantive and low flame bait comment on the topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38680523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38680523 I'd be interested in whether this meets the bar but once again you've got 5 million other users to see to so if you don't have the time you don't have the time.
    - dang 3y ago
      "Just asking questions" isn't a low-flamebait strategy for that material. Worse, your account is giving the impression of mostly being interested in promoting it, and that's not an ok use of HN, so please stop.

by vasco 3y ago

ruszki 3y ago

Pseudoscience like eugenics is just feelings packaged as science.

vasco 3y ago
Well yes, and that is obvious today, at the time they were reputable fields, just look it up. And if you read that in history, what does that tell you about the present and the possibility of it being the case with some fields today? My point is obviously not to defend those fields, but to say that pseudoscience maskerading as science isn't a thing that can only happen in the past. It's a bit strange to learn about the fact that it happened before yet not accept the possibility that some of the things we call science today, aren't.
- ruszki 3y ago
  What does reputability do with science? After 1915, it’s pseudoscience, regardless of who says it.
concordDance 3y ago
This depends a lot on what you means by "eugenics". Some people use the word to be a normative word (a statement about what should be) others positive word (a statement about what IS or could be). E.g. "We can use CRISPR and genetic screening to make people resistant to HIV" vs "we should do so". The former is a question of fact ("is this possible?") though often with a bunch of unspoken subquestions ("can we do this change without causing incidental genetic changes or damaging the egg?") and in the realm of science while the latter is a question of policy and feelings (how much do we want HIV resistance? What is the price we're willing to pay/risk we're willing to take? Does deliberately altering humanity open a can of worms best left unopened?). Conflation between normative and positive meanings are quite common across a wide variety of domains and can cause substantial confusion as two people can think they're talking about the same thing but actually aren't. Even in the "should" case there's a bunch of confusion as to what sort of things should count as "eugenics", with some people wanting the term to apply only to coercive measures and others wanting the term to apply to any deliberate changes to a population's gene pool (and theres the grey area in the middle where financial incentives happen). Note: A lot of politically fraught words will have a number of similar but different meanings as various interest groups fight over them. From "war" and "violence" to "culture" and "science" to "person" and "rights".

TeMPOraL 3y ago

> used as a scientific basis to justify many attrocities That's the operating phrase though. Throughout history, atrocities were justified using whatever was seen as the higher authority at the moment - the will of a deity, the words of a prophet, the decree of a king, appeal to destiny or legacy, and yes, science too. Especially in the early XX century, when science was kicking into gear, and delivering miracles left and right for everyone to see - it was easy tool to abuse to justify whatever the leaders wanted or needed to. Doesn't mean the science itself is at fault here. I didn't read up much on phrenology so I won't comment on it, but RE eugenics, I see it as a mix of good and bad ideas that sprouted in an environment full of aforementioned hatred and otherwise devoid of moral and ethical boundaries[0]. I feel it's more of a historical coincidence of fledging science and then-contemporary zeitgeist, rather than an innate feature of science. The resulting effect is that even the word itself - eugenics - casts a long shadow on research in fields like genetics, medicine and economics. There are whole subsections of those fields you can't discuss in polite company, 'lest someone rounds your thinking off to "eugenics" and therefore paint you as "nazi". This is a bad outcome. > Easier to trust more fundamental aspects of math and physics, but even in those fields, on the bleeding edge many things can change. That's true. There's this thing though. I can't put my finger on it, so it might be just a benefit of hindsight, but there's a notably different feeling when you reason from current state of knowledge in a correct way, vs. when you abuse it to justify whatever self-serving or atrocious idea you want. The atrocities committed under the label "eugenics" feel very much like the latter. But again, this may be just hindsight, and we may all be vulnerable to a new flavor of that mistake today. -- [0] - Notably, some of which were developed only after those events. E.g. the Nazis weren't the only ones willing to do brutal, lethal scientific experiments on POWs, and, to my understanding, the consensus and principle to not do that was achieved in response to the atrocities of WWII.

vasco 3y ago
Yes I didn't mean to say it was at fault, I was mostly bringing to light that _at the time_ the people doing these things thought they were being scientific about it, or convinced themselves of it. I agree with all your points in the follow up and think about it in very similar ways.

concordDance 3y ago

[flagged]

dang 3y ago
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- concordDance 3y ago
  For calibration purposes so i can get a better feel for the threshhold for "substantial", could you tell me whether the unsubstantive proportion is more like 1%, 10%, 50% or 90%? (I'll understand completely if you don't have the time to reply though)
  - pvg 3y ago
    0% race science apologia is a good metric to aim for in comments.
- concordDance 3y ago
  Here's my attempt at a substantive and low flame bait comment on the topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38680523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38680523 I'd be interested in whether this meets the bar but once again you've got 5 million other users to see to so if you don't have the time you don't have the time.
  - dang 3y ago
    "Just asking questions" isn't a low-flamebait strategy for that material. Worse, your account is giving the impression of mostly being interested in promoting it, and that's not an ok use of HN, so please stop.