3 ms·
Paradox of intolerance answers your dilemma. Other answers: if placebos work, why would we restrict peoples choice and their dissemination? Because placebos r
by cyanydeez 10mo ago
Paradox of intolerance answers your dilemma.
Other answers: if placebos work, why would we restrict peoples choice and their dissemination?
Because placebos rarely are innocent in often they become avoidant measures away from empirical science.
Your view point is a local minimum in that you want to ignore societal impact. One of those impacts is using valid data to tout pseudoscientific methods.
We know GIGO but the general populace does not
You should use the samw logic ans find yourself arguing against vaccinea and herd immunity.
- rahimnathwani 10mo agoThe paradox of intolerance suggests we should (if all else fails) suppress those whose seek to suppress others. How is that relevant? Is Lasker seeking to (let alone succeeding at) suppressing voices that disagree with his own? He might not engage with his critics (e.g. David Bessis) but AFAICT he's not doing anything to suppress them.
- cyanydeez 10mo agoSurely this time race science wont be used to make social policies that directly boil down to racism by visual difference.
- terminalshort 10mo agoSo if I understand correctly, your argument is: 1. This research may prove that there are significant intelligence differences by race. 2. Public knowledge of this fact could lead to discrimination on an individual level based on group membership. 3. This is bad for society. 4. Therefore we should not conduct research down this path.
- cyanydeez 10mo agoNo its: 1. Race science has never demonstrated real impacts on Society. 2. Society funds research to find real impacts on Society. 3. Racists want to coninue to do #1 despite never demonstrating real impacts on Society. I mean, go on king, collect your own data on Phrenology, but don't get mad if the rest of us don't give you our head measurements.