4 ms·

1) Should the US sterilize the mentally retarded? [...] 2) Should the US develop and use Orion-style nuclear propulsion? These are policy questions, not a

1) Should the US sterilize the mentally retarded? [...] 2) Should the US develop and use Orion-style nuclear propulsion? These are policy questions, not a scientific questions. Also, you seem to be confused between the differences between science and technology. Can you not differentiate between basic and applied research?

dalke 14y ago
You're quibbling. I can trivially turn the first into a non-policy question by "Does directed sterilization improve the general social condition?" I didn't do that because the previous commenter's statement placed no restrictions on the types of question I could ask. But it doesn't make a difference. The scientific answer, 100 years ago, to this reworded question was "yes." Quoting from the Wikipedia article on eugenics: "Many members of the American Progressive Movement supported eugenics, enticed by its scientific trappings and its promise to cure social ills." Again I point out that there were academic posts in eugenics, conferences, and funded scientific research, and the result of this work guided government policy decisions, including government mandated sterilizations in Sweden up until 1975. Remember, the topic I'm responding to is "Name one question for which a scientific answer no matter how inadequate was once the best, but for which now a philosophical or religious one is the best one?" The premise to the topic allows inadequate science, so I'm justified in using this case even though we had a poor understanding of genetics 100 years ago. Oh! You should read the comments to Galton's "Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims", for The American Journal of Sociology, Volume X; July, 1904; Number 1 at http://www.mugu.com/galton/essays/1900-1911/galton-1904-am-journ-soc-eugenics-scope-aims.htm http://www.mugu.com/galton/essays/1900-1911/galton-1904-am-j... There are two dissenters, Benjamin Kidd and John M. Robertson. Kidd gives another counter-example for this thread: > Many examples of a similar kind might be given. It may be remembered, for instance, how a generation or two ago Malthusianism was urged upon us in the name of science and almost with the zeal of a religion. We have lived to see the opposite view now beginning to be urged with much the same zeal and emphasis. And I completely don't understand your statement about any confusion I might have in recognizing the differences between science and technology, or between basic and applied research.

dalke 14y ago

You're quibbling. I can trivially turn the first into a non-policy question by "Does directed sterilization improve the general social condition?" I didn't do that because the previous commenter's statement placed no restrictions on the types of question I could ask. But it doesn't make a difference. The scientific answer, 100 years ago, to this reworded question was "yes." Quoting from the Wikipedia article on eugenics: "Many members of the American Progressive Movement supported eugenics, enticed by its scientific trappings and its promise to cure social ills." Again I point out that there were academic posts in eugenics, conferences, and funded scientific research, and the result of this work guided government policy decisions, including government mandated sterilizations in Sweden up until 1975. Remember, the topic I'm responding to is "Name one question for which a scientific answer no matter how inadequate was once the best, but for which now a philosophical or religious one is the best one?" The premise to the topic allows inadequate science, so I'm justified in using this case even though we had a poor understanding of genetics 100 years ago. Oh! You should read the comments to Galton's "Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims", for The American Journal of Sociology, Volume X; July, 1904; Number 1 at http://www.mugu.com/galton/essays/1900-1911/galton-1904-am-journ-soc-eugenics-scope-aims.htm http://www.mugu.com/galton/essays/1900-1911/galton-1904-am-j... There are two dissenters, Benjamin Kidd and John M. Robertson. Kidd gives another counter-example for this thread: > Many examples of a similar kind might be given. It may be remembered, for instance, how a generation or two ago Malthusianism was urged upon us in the name of science and almost with the zeal of a religion. We have lived to see the opposite view now beginning to be urged with much the same zeal and emphasis. And I completely don't understand your statement about any confusion I might have in recognizing the differences between science and technology, or between basic and applied research.