5 ms·

A lot of these aren't "strange or scientifically unsound ideas" but downright racism. Whether Nobel prize recipients are less or more racist than their contempo

A lot of these aren't "strange or scientifically unsound ideas" but downright racism. Whether Nobel prize recipients are less or more racist than their contemporaries is debatable but I'm not sure they fit the same category as "believed in ghosts" or "claims to have talked to a fluorescent racoon".

epolanski 2mo ago
That still belongs to strange or scientifically unsound.
- aswegs8 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - cestith 2mo ago
    It is ethically unsound.
    - lmf4lol 2mo ago
      are ethics man-made or „given“ to us by god, the watchmaker or the universe?
      - SiempreViernes 2mo ago
        I think that in this context it's more useful to pose the question in there other direction: which moral systems declare that the slave trade and the disenfranchisement of persons on the basis of skin colour is not ok?
      - amanaplanacanal 2mo ago
        For the most part they come out of emotions that evolution found useful for procreation (love, fear, anger), then extrapolated to people living in small groups, then to larger societies after the invention of agriculture via the "iterated prisoners dilemma".
      - cestith 2mo ago
        Ethics is a field of study. I know some on this site loathe the humanities, but those same often don’t mind using language, psychology, and sociology to make a buck.
      - jonhohle 2mo ago
        Eugenics rejects the idea that all are created equal. Equality is supported by both Judeo-Christian theology and secular enlightenment philosophy. I can think of little modern philosophy more regressive than the idea that a self-appointed superior can determine that another is inferior to the point that they (or their offspring) should be culled from existence. Eugenics and racism have been intertwined since the beginning and with a modern twist continue to target vulnerable populations.
    - swat535 2mo ago
      "Ethics" is subjective, there is no such thing as an objective ethics (unless you are religious). This is why thought experiments like the Trolley problems don't have a simple answer.. and they get even more complex with variations of the thought experiment.
      - cestith 2mo ago
        I agree ethics can be subjective, so much so that there is more than one model of ethics. However, please tell me which model of ethics supports eugenics. Is it Utilitarian, Rights, Fairness, Common Good, or Virtue?
        stronglikedan 2mo ago
        Since it's subjective, you can just make up your own model supporting eugenics, and it'll be just as valid as any other model.
        kube-system 2mo ago
        but it may not be accepted or viewed as moral by others
        cestith 2mo ago
        Just as valid as the five recognized models of ethics? Do tell. How does your model of ethics differ?
        Jyaif 2mo ago
        If we eliminate a gene that causes bad thing to happen, this kind of eugenics would fall into the Utilitarian model, among others.
        cestith 2mo ago
        Would you propose selective breeding, selective sterilization, selective euthanasia, war, genetic engineering, or what to eradicate such a gene? What single gene that only causes bad things to happen do you have in mind? Are you sure it doesn’t also control unrelated activity that’s helpful to the population?
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - embedding-shape 2mo ago
    > It's just completely outside of today's Overton window Never heard it expressed like that, but I guess you could apply it to tons of stuff? > Lobotomy is not scientifically unsound, as aswegs8 proves, it's just completely outside of today's Overton window.
    - CalRobert 2mo ago
      I mean, if we wanted every human on Earth to be over 6' tall, we could just cull the short ones (or stop them from reproducing), and this is scientifically valid, but, of course, evil. As far as lobotomy, I don't know, but it seems to be widely discredited inasmuch as it didn't achieve its aims (or if it did, the aims themselves were highly questionable) Given the title, lobotomy is an apt reference "The originator of the procedure, Portuguese neurologist António Egas Moniz, shared the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine of 1949 for the "discovery of the therapeutic value of leucotomy in certain psychoses"," - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy
      - datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
        > I mean, if we wanted every human on Earth to be over 6' tall, we could just cull the short ones (or stop them from reproducing), and this is scientifically valid, but, of course, evil. What's scientifically valid about that? What part of the scientific process is being utilized? What hypothesis is being tested? If you're implying that people would start to be taller because we are culling short people, then you're talking about "artificial selection", not "eugenics". People who believe that there are groups of humans that are inferior or superior based on genetic differences would love for you to conflate the two concepts because that gets them closer to their political goals that have historically resulted in unimaginable human suffering.
        itishappy 2mo ago
        > if we wanted every human on Earth to be over 6' tall, we could just cull the short ones (or stop them from reproducing) This is a testable hypotheses. What's actually stopping us? Science is not the issue here.
  - dyauspitr 2mo ago
    It is unsound because “better” is completely subjective and up to the definer. There’s no objective, scientific truth there.
  - ajross 2mo ago
    Oooph. I'm going to be charitable and make a (horrifying) steelman point for you: Eugenics can be understood as a subset of the ideas of plant and animal breeding that have been practiced for centuries. Those are scientifically sound, thus the idea that humans can be bred for certain traits should be too. THAT SAID, "Eugenics" as espoused and understood over the past two centuries isn't that at all. It's 100%, every time, a pretty face for racism. Human social and ancestry divisions ARE NOT the product of deliberate selection, never have been, and any attempt to conflate the ideas is, yeah, pretty fucking unsound. And horrifying.
    - datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
      > Eugenics can be understood as a subset of the ideas of plant and animal breeding that have been practiced for centuries. That's called "artificial selection", and people who believe that certain groups of humans are somehow superior or inferior to each other because of differences in genetics would love for you to conflate "artificial selection" and "eugenics". There's no need to steelman a concept that has caused unimaginable human suffering.
  - datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
      [flagged]
  - jellyroll42 2mo ago
    average Hacker News user opinion
  - kube-system 2mo ago
    It falls into the formerly mentioned "strange" category for other reasons, along with many other cruel practices. "Scientific soundness" is far from the only benchmark for a good idea.
dyauspitr 2mo ago
The key point is it’s not just ethically wrong, but it’s not scientific because it’s subjective and has no basis in reality. For instance, you cannot use genetic studies to define a race because for instance, in Africa, you could have massive genetic diversity in people that are 200 miles apart. That doesn’t make them different races. If you did attempt to classify people into races based on something scientific like genetics, you would end up with hundreds of thousands of “races”. With even more fine tooth classification, you could subdivide those people into further sub groups that becomes indistinguishable from just classifying extended families.
- throw0101d 2mo ago
  > If you did attempt to classify people into races based on something scientific like genetics, you would end up with hundreds of thousands of “races”. With even more fine tooth classification, you could subdivide those people into further sub groups that becomes indistinguishable from just classifying extended families. 'Biologically speaking', wouldn't that 'just' be something like breeds? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_breeds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_breeds
  - dyauspitr 2mo ago
    Yeah, but at the end of the day, all of this classification is very arbitrary. Until you can come up with a measurable system like “8% genetic differences are defined as a different species” or “can successfully interbreed with viable non-sterile offspring” or something it’s all just a useful pneumonic to understand the world, but it’s not really objective science. Dog breeds are notoriously subjective and just depends on what the registry in the place wanted to do.
- losvedir 2mo ago
  That just means you can't call Africans one "race" because they hold all the genetic diversity on the planet. But it doesn't mean there's not some meaningful genetic grouping of populations that splintered out of Africa. Or, concretely, I'm struggling to square what you're saying with the fact that I tell my doctor I'm Hispanic because that means a higher genetic predisposition to things like diabetes.
shuwix 2mo ago
Yes, reality is racist. Statistics is racist. Nobel prize laureates are racist. Whole science is racist ... it's totally inaccessible to people with IQ 2 standard deviations below average.
- shuwix 2mo ago
  Only thing stupid people are really good at is being butthurt. Keep downvoting my comment because reality offends you. I really love the "level of thinking" that this will somehow hurt me. Thank you for proving my point.

epolanski 2mo ago

That still belongs to strange or scientifically unsound.

aswegs8 2mo ago
[flagged]
- cestith 2mo ago
  It is ethically unsound.
  - lmf4lol 2mo ago
    are ethics man-made or „given“ to us by god, the watchmaker or the universe?
    - SiempreViernes 2mo ago
      I think that in this context it's more useful to pose the question in there other direction: which moral systems declare that the slave trade and the disenfranchisement of persons on the basis of skin colour is not ok?
    - amanaplanacanal 2mo ago
      For the most part they come out of emotions that evolution found useful for procreation (love, fear, anger), then extrapolated to people living in small groups, then to larger societies after the invention of agriculture via the "iterated prisoners dilemma".
    - cestith 2mo ago
      Ethics is a field of study. I know some on this site loathe the humanities, but those same often don’t mind using language, psychology, and sociology to make a buck.
    - jonhohle 2mo ago
      Eugenics rejects the idea that all are created equal. Equality is supported by both Judeo-Christian theology and secular enlightenment philosophy. I can think of little modern philosophy more regressive than the idea that a self-appointed superior can determine that another is inferior to the point that they (or their offspring) should be culled from existence. Eugenics and racism have been intertwined since the beginning and with a modern twist continue to target vulnerable populations.
  - swat535 2mo ago
    "Ethics" is subjective, there is no such thing as an objective ethics (unless you are religious). This is why thought experiments like the Trolley problems don't have a simple answer.. and they get even more complex with variations of the thought experiment.
    - cestith 2mo ago
      I agree ethics can be subjective, so much so that there is more than one model of ethics. However, please tell me which model of ethics supports eugenics. Is it Utilitarian, Rights, Fairness, Common Good, or Virtue?
      - stronglikedan 2mo ago
        Since it's subjective, you can just make up your own model supporting eugenics, and it'll be just as valid as any other model.
        kube-system 2mo ago
        but it may not be accepted or viewed as moral by others
        cestith 2mo ago
        Just as valid as the five recognized models of ethics? Do tell. How does your model of ethics differ?
      - Jyaif 2mo ago
        If we eliminate a gene that causes bad thing to happen, this kind of eugenics would fall into the Utilitarian model, among others.
        cestith 2mo ago
        Would you propose selective breeding, selective sterilization, selective euthanasia, war, genetic engineering, or what to eradicate such a gene? What single gene that only causes bad things to happen do you have in mind? Are you sure it doesn’t also control unrelated activity that’s helpful to the population?
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- embedding-shape 2mo ago
  > It's just completely outside of today's Overton window Never heard it expressed like that, but I guess you could apply it to tons of stuff? > Lobotomy is not scientifically unsound, as aswegs8 proves, it's just completely outside of today's Overton window.
  - CalRobert 2mo ago
    I mean, if we wanted every human on Earth to be over 6' tall, we could just cull the short ones (or stop them from reproducing), and this is scientifically valid, but, of course, evil. As far as lobotomy, I don't know, but it seems to be widely discredited inasmuch as it didn't achieve its aims (or if it did, the aims themselves were highly questionable) Given the title, lobotomy is an apt reference "The originator of the procedure, Portuguese neurologist António Egas Moniz, shared the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine of 1949 for the "discovery of the therapeutic value of leucotomy in certain psychoses"," - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy
    - datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
      > I mean, if we wanted every human on Earth to be over 6' tall, we could just cull the short ones (or stop them from reproducing), and this is scientifically valid, but, of course, evil. What's scientifically valid about that? What part of the scientific process is being utilized? What hypothesis is being tested? If you're implying that people would start to be taller because we are culling short people, then you're talking about "artificial selection", not "eugenics". People who believe that there are groups of humans that are inferior or superior based on genetic differences would love for you to conflate the two concepts because that gets them closer to their political goals that have historically resulted in unimaginable human suffering.
      - itishappy 2mo ago
        > if we wanted every human on Earth to be over 6' tall, we could just cull the short ones (or stop them from reproducing) This is a testable hypotheses. What's actually stopping us? Science is not the issue here.
- dyauspitr 2mo ago
  It is unsound because “better” is completely subjective and up to the definer. There’s no objective, scientific truth there.
- ajross 2mo ago
  Oooph. I'm going to be charitable and make a (horrifying) steelman point for you: Eugenics can be understood as a subset of the ideas of plant and animal breeding that have been practiced for centuries. Those are scientifically sound, thus the idea that humans can be bred for certain traits should be too. THAT SAID, "Eugenics" as espoused and understood over the past two centuries isn't that at all. It's 100%, every time, a pretty face for racism. Human social and ancestry divisions ARE NOT the product of deliberate selection, never have been, and any attempt to conflate the ideas is, yeah, pretty fucking unsound. And horrifying.
  - datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
    > Eugenics can be understood as a subset of the ideas of plant and animal breeding that have been practiced for centuries. That's called "artificial selection", and people who believe that certain groups of humans are somehow superior or inferior to each other because of differences in genetics would love for you to conflate "artificial selection" and "eugenics". There's no need to steelman a concept that has caused unimaginable human suffering.
- datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
    [flagged]
- jellyroll42 2mo ago
  average Hacker News user opinion
- kube-system 2mo ago
  It falls into the formerly mentioned "strange" category for other reasons, along with many other cruel practices. "Scientific soundness" is far from the only benchmark for a good idea.

dyauspitr 2mo ago

The key point is it’s not just ethically wrong, but it’s not scientific because it’s subjective and has no basis in reality. For instance, you cannot use genetic studies to define a race because for instance, in Africa, you could have massive genetic diversity in people that are 200 miles apart. That doesn’t make them different races. If you did attempt to classify people into races based on something scientific like genetics, you would end up with hundreds of thousands of “races”. With even more fine tooth classification, you could subdivide those people into further sub groups that becomes indistinguishable from just classifying extended families.

throw0101d 2mo ago
> If you did attempt to classify people into races based on something scientific like genetics, you would end up with hundreds of thousands of “races”. With even more fine tooth classification, you could subdivide those people into further sub groups that becomes indistinguishable from just classifying extended families. 'Biologically speaking', wouldn't that 'just' be something like breeds? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_breeds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_breeds
- dyauspitr 2mo ago
  Yeah, but at the end of the day, all of this classification is very arbitrary. Until you can come up with a measurable system like “8% genetic differences are defined as a different species” or “can successfully interbreed with viable non-sterile offspring” or something it’s all just a useful pneumonic to understand the world, but it’s not really objective science. Dog breeds are notoriously subjective and just depends on what the registry in the place wanted to do.
losvedir 2mo ago
That just means you can't call Africans one "race" because they hold all the genetic diversity on the planet. But it doesn't mean there's not some meaningful genetic grouping of populations that splintered out of Africa. Or, concretely, I'm struggling to square what you're saying with the fact that I tell my doctor I'm Hispanic because that means a higher genetic predisposition to things like diabetes.

shuwix 2mo ago

Yes, reality is racist. Statistics is racist. Nobel prize laureates are racist. Whole science is racist ... it's totally inaccessible to people with IQ 2 standard deviations below average.

shuwix 2mo ago
Only thing stupid people are really good at is being butthurt. Keep downvoting my comment because reality offends you. I really love the "level of thinking" that this will somehow hurt me. Thank you for proving my point.