I’m talking about scientific theories that could be true or false, and are amenable to proof (as much as any scientific theory is). For example, the idea that innate differences between men and women explain why a majority of students studying biology are female and a majority of students studying physics are male, or that culture could explain some of the disparities between different ethnic groups in education. Or the big one on the right, the theory of evolution.
Are there theories like this where the consequences of people believing in them cause so much harm, that even if shown to be true, they should be suppressed, whether by law or by social pressure, deplatforming etc? Should we ban research into them just in case?
Alternatively, should be we require an unusually high level of evidence before accepting these theories, or considering acting on them when making policy? In the absence of this extraordinary evidence, do you consider it immoral to discuss them or argue that any of them could be true?
Feel free to mention any other theories you believe fall into this set, but this is not a thread for arguing over the evidence for and against any of them.
There is some discussion surrounding study and publication of dual use technologies. I recall some kerfuffle a few years back about research on modifications to influenza(?) that could potentially weaponize it. But I’m coming up dry in Google so maybe it was something else. Anyway, see here:
Are we talking about in real Earth 2020, or are we talking about in the realm of platonic ideals? The trouble with trying to have these conversations in an ultra-abstract way that ignores the real world context is that you come up with abstract answers that you can’t actually apply to any real world situation. Which makes it a kind of “so what” conversation if you don’t state up front why it’s a conversation you want to have; otherwise people are going to assume.
As soon as you say “for example, culture… and education,” you’re not really talking about any abstract philosophical principle anymore, and you can’t really say “not Nazism.” Assuming that your goal is to come up with some kind of common understanding of how the principles should be applied to real-world scenarios, you’re really talking about Nazism from the beginning. Nobody thinks “race science,” for example, is dangerous because it’s just such an explosive idea and man if true, people just couldn’t handle the truth. They think those ideas, as “theories,” are harmful because of all the harm they have done, will do, and are designed to do. Studying ethnic groups or gender difference or cultural variations: totally fine, not a dangerous idea. Specific examples of theories based on those things: often dangerous, yes, often should be suppressed.
So, I guess, to answer your question directly: no, there are no innately harmful theories. However, your examples, and I would assume the majority of all other examples that others would come up with that would be relevant to this discussion, are not examples of theories that haven’t already become harmful, so my answer would be immediately different as applied. I doubt, after all, that you had the suppression of the skeletal structure of chickens in mind when you started the thread.
No. And neither should any hypotheses, even the racist ones (i.e. some races are inherently less intelligent than others due to genetics). But proponents of racism, misogyny, transphobia, etc., should be relentlessly mocked, criticized, challenged, opposed, etc., including being banned from decent media (and social media) platforms. Dressing racism/bigotry up in science-y sounding language doesn’t make it any more acceptable. And if someone thinks they have good evidence for such a hypothesis, then they better make sure it’s bulletproof before coming forward with it. There’s too much awful history of racism and bigotry to treat this topics just like any other. We really should be very careful with them – not banning them with criminal sanctions, but a serious social stigma towards racism and bigotry. Including science-y sounding hypotheses that just so happen to match old-fashioned bigotry. Unless and until someone has rock-solid proof – if so, then we’ll deal with it then.
Hell, yeah. If a scientist had conclusive evidence that bathing in the blood of virgins adds years to one’s life, I would sure as hell hope that the scientist and anybody else with knowledge of that evidence would suppress it.
Appreciate this line and hope folks stick to it (specifically regarding rehashing transphobic pseudoscience). Hopefully this is also not yet another thread for hand-wringing over cancel culture and the PC Popo.
The devil’s in the details, of course: " even if shown to be true" is a real tricky phrase. It’s passive voice, for one, removing agency (who’s showing it to be true? to whose standards of evidence?). And then “just in case” is vague. Just in case what? Just in case they’re shown to be true, or just in case they facilitate another Holocaust?
Ultimately I’ll say what I’ve said to posters that believe in racist pseudoscience: at a certain point there are diminishing returns to continued investigations into different fields. Scientists (I almost used ironiquotes, but that needlessly sanctifies scientists; real scientists can create garbage science) have spent literal centuries trying to come up with biological justifications for differences between socially generated racial groups, and every single one of these justifications has collapsed upon examination. When yet another racist scientist creates yet another racist theory in this vein, I feel pretty comfortable not giving it the time of day. And by “not giving it the time of day,” I mean things you might consider suppression: I mean not giving it government funding, for example.
But that’s mostly because it’s garbage science. If I believe a theory is garbage science, I’m less likely to give it time or money. If I believe it’s being promoted because the promoter’s a bigot, I’m also less likely to give it time or money (because historically such theories tend not to pan out).
That sounds more like magic than science. Granting your hypothetical, if a scientist really had conclusive evidence that bathing in the blood of virgin’s adds years to one’s life, presumably there would be a scientific explanation, one which could plausibly lead to a treatment for which no virgins are harmed.
A more realistic scenario would be a scientific theory leading to the development of some biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon. This has actually happened. And while I’m not totally convinced that it’s always possible or desirable to suppress such theories, a reasonable case could be made for trying to do so.
The OP, however, seemed to be thinking more about theories that aren’t “politically correct” or would have unfortunate social implications. And for that, my instinct is that it’s better to know the truth than to suppress it. But I’d want to know the whole truth, and the reason behind it, not just an oversimplified, misunderstood version of the truth.
I just wanted to say that when I saw the thread title, I was pretty sure I knew who the OP would be and what the suppressed theories would be before I even read it.
Given the rather shaky credentials that “social science” has among the more provable sciences, I’ll say the OP’s thread title is a fail as is his post.
Given the post, the title should read:
Are some social science theories so likely to be misused that they should be suppressed?
To which the answer of course is “No, they should not be suppressed. Knowledge should never be suppressed. But anyone acting on the theory needs to be especially careful of misusing it.”
And given the title, the post should read:
I’m talking about scientific theories that could be true or false, and are amenable to proof (as much as any scientific theory is). For example, the details of dark matter, dark energy, or various forms of quantum gravity. Those are amenable to proof.
Unike the OP’s implied screeds which are amenable only to vague statistical correlations in uncontrolled circumstances that may or may not provably amount to causation. And whose error bars, due to inevitable confounders, vastly exceed the magnitude of the conclusions they purport to make.
I’m trying to understand the mindset behind it (though I’m not sure what ‘Popo’ means).
Let’s say you look at the evidence and it’s proved to your satisfaction. Do you do everything you can to bury the evidence and silence anyone who speaks about it?
In case they are shown to be true, which by definition you believe will have bad consequences.
Yes, that’s what inspired the OP. The scientific theory leading to weapons development is also an interesting consideration, especially if it has potential for civilian use as well.
As proved as social science can get, then. No one is as skeptical of equally (or more) shaky theories that don’t come with unfortunate implications. Can I chalk you up to ‘require extraordinary evidence’?
My view is that suppressing theories and assuming some other model because it is more palatable can also cause harm. If there is evidence such harm is occurring, I think it is immoral to continue suppressing the theory. And it’s wrong to punish the people suffering the harm for speaking out about it.
If something is true, it’s true. Banning it is not only unscientific, but gives a huge boost to all conspiracy theorists who argue that “the truth is being suppressed by the authorities.”
The thing to do, when presented with an unpleasant truth, is to accept and deal with it, rather than pretend it’s false.
Ah. Then of course not, for almost all science. The exception might be research around subjects like biological warfare, in which common dissemination of the scientific findings might result in the extinction of our species, but I don’t think that’s what you have in mind.
Some items about sex could fit the OP, while some governments do not suppress that research some do and a lot of religious people do work to suppress it.
Even more controversial, and I’m not so willing to make my internet history even worse and link to those, I will have to go by memory and mention that if there is no violence involved, I remember some past reports that pointed at minors not being affected much by early sexual activity (I think Kinsley got flack for some reports of it). Of course, some deviants would use those to justify their sorry existence. One item that I agree should not be discussed far and wide.