# Are some scientific theories so harmful they should be suppressed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 28, 2020, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672 "2020-11-28T14:20:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/181 "2020-12-02T17:35:49Z")
> [@FlikTheBlue](#): > > In my opinion the issue should be if there is an actual underlying biological difference. With regards to race, for example, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia were mentioned earlier in the thread. These two conditions are linked to European and African ancestry respectively, and we have a good understanding of the genetics of both conditions. The evidence for that would fall into the well established and generally accepted by the experts as being correct. As far as I know there isn’t any serious scholars claiming, for example, that sickle cell disease is found equally in all racial groups. The problem is that “race” doesn’t work here, especially since the most clear sign we use for “race” is skin color. If a doctor has 4 patients, one Greek-American, one Indian immigrant, one Somali immigrant, and one Black South African, which would make sense to screen for sickle cell trait? If you are basing it on race, you will probably be wrong. The two Africans are Black by any racial definition commonly used, but both would be at lower risk then the people of European and Southeast Asian origin. And that is because the [science](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060623/) is clear, but the use is muddled. Science says that sickle cell trait is more common in areas with endemic malaria. History says that many slaves brought to U.S. come from such an area. Social convention says that dark skin means Black and that Black is one homogeneous group. It takes two steps away from science to get to the conclusion that sickle cell trait is linked to race, but if you polled most people who are aware of sickle cell screening they would say it should be linked to race. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/182 "2020-12-02T17:40:51Z")
**Modnote** : Its OK to comment about the posters posts but not to speculate about his conclusions. Please do not repeat. This is just a guidance, not a warning. Nothing on your permanent record. ---
**Author:** ![damuriajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac8455/32.png) [@damuriajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/damuriajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/183 "2020-12-02T19:02:47Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Suppose that such a scientific theory - offensive though it may be - were actually proven to be true. What would be the implications? It might lead to a lot of discrimination. Perhaps there would have to be much stronger anti-racial-discrimination laws passed as a result. It would drastically reduce efforts to reduce racial disparities in income, wealth, education, etc. overnight. > [@DemonTree](#): > > See above for what I meant, but eugenics arose from Darwin’s theory of evolution and, while it is surely true in principle that humans could be bred to have certain characteristics, it wouldn’t be moral to try, and the idea has definitely harmed people in the past. You mean in a “three generations of imbeciles is enough” sort of way or regulating procreation in a Ender’s Game sort of way? > [@Czarcasm](#): > > You seem to have no concept as to what a “scientific theory” actually is. Can you clear this up, please? What is the point of this quibble? Is Eugenics (if proven to be effective) so harnful that it should be suppressed? > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I would say in that it contradicts the Bible. I know a few biologists who take a less literalist view of the bible and seem to be able to reconcile their faith with their science pretty easily. > [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > the force for good Kinda sounds like the jedi > [@ArtBeforeScience](#): > > An IQ test doesn’t actually measure IQ. It measures the test taker’s responses to the questions on the test. We use IQ itself as a stand-in metric, because “intelligence” itself is so hard to quantify. We can’t even agree on what it means. And yet there is pretty broad consensus among psychologists that study IQ. Of course there is some disagreement as there is with anything else. But IQ tests are considered reliable by almost everyone (in that they measure something and does so consistently from test to test) and that the thing they measure correlates with intelligence and predicted achievement, even if it is not a perfect measure of these things. Most of the criticisms of IQ is that it’s not a perfect measure or that there are exceptions and outliers. This is true for a lot of things and is not unique to IQ. > [@LSLGuy](#): > > - Yes, I know the correct word is “horror”. I’m having fun. In a “things man was not meant to know” Cthulhu sort of way? > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > …and, you lost me. Banning people from social media platforms is a terrible idea, except for cases where they are making direct threats against people, spreading kiddie porn, or otherwise violating the law. Banning people doesn’t shut them up - it makes them louder and angrier. And you risk the creation of alternative social media for them, which balkanizes the social fabric and leads to more ‘othering’ and separation of people into tribes. This is the problem with a lot of the public discourse. The democratization of speech through social media has led some to believe that silencing an opinion is the same as winning an argument but isn’t. It doesn’t change very many minds, if you can’t confront and address the opinions you disagree with then those opinions only fester. We see this in the two most recent elections. We silenced those who had white grievance and told them to sit their privileged butts down and they did. Then they went out and voted for trump. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > slavery and genocide So you’re afraid that claims made today about intelligence would lead to slavery and genocide? > [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Turn it around and ask what purpose there could be to pursue such a theory? It is almost impossible to settle (there are so many variables) and the results of such a study would be essentially useless. Scientists prefer to study questions whose answer would be of some use. One purpose of this theory would be that it would explain some of the racial disparities we see and we might stop trying to achieve equality of results along racial lines on the premise that all groups are the same. > [@Mijin](#): > > we will need to worry about skynet and superhumans. They prefer to be called nietchzean ubermensch or “m’lord” > [@Mijin](#): > > If there were some finding that suggested whites’ innate intelligence is lower than other races (putting aside my previous objections on why that wouldn’t happen), you likely wouldn’t hear about it. I think it more likely that we would develop an anti-intellectual culture that emphasized some area where whites excelled. The go to characteristic has been “leadership” and “character” Black quarterbacks became half backs and wide receivers because they didn’t have the leadership qualities. Same for black coaches staying in their role as asst coaches. Same for asians getting into selective colleges. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > Well, anti-vaxxers are a lunatic fringe all their own. But I’m not familiar with any fringe who thinks this is a vaccine to be avoided because it’s “from the Trump administration”. I might fall into that fringe. I am not an anti-vaxxer but I know enough about vaccines to know that there were a lot of short cuts taken here. > [@Strassia](#): > > And I have yet seen any one suppress such research. I think there are restrictions on cloning research. > [@FlikTheBlue](#): > > Regarding the discussion of race and IQ, these hypothesis should fit into the second category. When they are brought up it should be in the context of being demonstrated to be incorrect and taught as such. I don’t know if this is stepping over the line but I don’t think this one has been proven to be incorrect the way geocentrism has been disproven, has it? ---
**Author:** ![yarblek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/71e660/32.png) [@yarblek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yarblek)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/184 "2020-12-02T19:11:48Z")
> [@damuriajashi](#): > > I am not an anti-vaxxer but I know enough about vaccines to know that there were a lot of short cuts taken here. Which shortcuts were those? My understanding is that of the three western developed vaccines, the trials have been above board. Now the Russian one on the other hand… ---
**Author:** ![damuriajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac8455/32.png) [@damuriajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/damuriajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/185 "2020-12-02T19:23:41Z")
> [@yarblek](#): > > Which shortcuts were those? My understanding is that of the three western developed vaccines, the trials have been above board. Now the Russian one on the other hand… We don’t understand the long term side effects of the vaccines. Vaccines usually take 10 or more years to develop. We skipped some steps that do not affect the safety of the vaccine (animal testing was largely skipped and accelerated to human testing) but we short circuited human testing as well. Human testing usually goes on for years to make sure we don’t have long term side effects. I am likely to get the vaccine for myself as soon as the doctors in our family give us an all clear but they have already indicated they probably would not vaccinate their children until the vaccine has been beta tested by the rest of the country (next september at the earliest). ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/186 "2020-12-02T19:27:46Z")
> [@damuriajashi](#): > > > [@LSLGuy](#): > > > > \* Yes, I know the correct word is “horror”. I’m having fun. > > In a “things man was not meant to know” Cthulhu sort of way? We’ll have to ask the OP what he meant; it wasn’t my idea. Putting back the rest of the context of my comment: > [@LSLGuy](#): > > > if a scientific theory is true but horrific, should we squash it? > > You aren’t squashing the _what_ . Whatever horrificness (Horrifnicity? Horrificality?)\* there may be is already out there in Nature and the theory changes that not a jot. > > You’re (trying to) squash the understanding of the _how_ or _why_ . > … > \* Yes, I know the correct word is “horror”. I’m having fun. Now the “true but horrific” line was first given by @Velocity in post 57 as a gloss of the OP: > [@Velocity](#): > > Not to junior mod, but I think we are sidetracking the thread. We have gone from “if a scientific theory is true but horrific, should we squash it?” to nitpicking over the minutae of what is or isn’t a theory. What the OP actually said in the OP was: > [@DemonTree](#): > > 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? Putting that all together I was saying something about like this: @DemonTree: 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? @LSLGuy: You aren’t suppressing / banning the _what_. Whatever “so much harm” there may be is already out there in Nature and the presence or absence of the theory changes that not a jot. Nothing about that seems to support your > In a “things man was not meant to know” Cthulhu sort of way? take on it. ---
**Author:** ![damuriajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac8455/32.png) [@damuriajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/damuriajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/187 "2020-12-02T19:29:49Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Nothing about that seems to support your > > > In a “things man was not meant to know” Cthulhu sort of way? > > take on it. You apparently don’t think I am as funny as I do. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/188 "2020-12-02T19:47:21Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I don’t think the example is a good fit with your OP, because AFAICT none of the “Hindutva” opponents to the hypothesis of ancient Indo-European in-migration to South Asia are advocating suppression of any scientific theories involved with ancestral-DNA analysis. > > Some of them may be opposing or misinterpreting the findings of this particular instance of research, but AFAICT nobody is saying that such research shouldn’t be done, or that the theory should be suppressed, on the grounds that it’s too harmful despite being admittedly true. The hypothesis they are possibly-suppressing is that there was Indo-European immigration to India. The evidence of the study tends to confirm it, so they are ignoring that evidence. That’s exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Will be interesting to see if the government does put obstacles in the way of future research. Probably you are right that the people suppressing theories/hypotheses (eg creationists) have convinced themselves that they are false, so they are not consciously hiding the truth to avoid harm. But any are, they’d hardly admit it. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/189 "2020-12-02T19:52:38Z")
> [@damuriajashi](#): > > You mean in a “three generations of imbeciles is enough” sort of way or regulating procreation in a Ender’s Game sort of way? I was referring to the “three generations of imbeciles” thing when I said it had harmed people in the past. And that version wouldn’t have worked anyway. But humans are animals, so it must be theoretically possible to get the same results with selective breeding. It would just be various combinations of impractical and unethical. Genetic engineering is a much more reasonable plan, although it has its own issues. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/190 "2020-12-02T20:14:57Z")
> [@damuriajashi](#): > > You apparently don’t think I am as funny as I do. All good. The rest of your post was substantive, so I thought that part was too. My error. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/191 "2020-12-02T20:38:47Z")
> [@damuriajashi](#): > > > [@QuickSilver](#): > > > > Well, anti-vaxxers are a lunatic fringe all their own. But I’m not familiar with any fringe who thinks this is a vaccine to be avoided because it’s “from the Trump administration”. > > I might fall into that fringe. I am not an anti-vaxxer but I know enough about vaccines to know that there were a lot of short cuts taken here. Say more words. ---
**Author:** ![damuriajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac8455/32.png) [@damuriajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/damuriajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/192 "2020-12-02T20:46:32Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Say more words. I sort of did in a later post but the tldr version is that we haven’t had enough time to suss out longer term side effects. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/193 "2020-12-02T20:59:00Z")
> [@damuriajashi](#): > > So you’re afraid that claims made today about intelligence would lead to slavery and genocide? I’m afraid that they make them more likely, sure. As should all people of goodwill. One of the primary goals of decent humans should be making sure that slavery and genocide don’t happen again – and this requires acknowledging that they might. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/194 "2020-12-02T21:14:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m afraid that they make them more likely, sure. As should all people of goodwill. All people of goodwill should be keen to avoid the occurance of more slavery and genocide. They do not need to agree with you on what makes those things more likely. ---
**Author:** ![damuriajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac8455/32.png) [@damuriajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/damuriajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/195 "2020-12-02T21:14:41Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > and this requires acknowledging that they might. Wait (you think that absent a collapse of civilization) the United States of America might revert to slavery and genocide? I don’t think guarding against the rise of slavery and genocide in america is something we should worry about. It seems kind of alarmist. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/196 "2020-12-02T21:17:33Z")
It’s not just about the US. There’s a big world out there. But I believe bad things could still happen in the US. We’re not special. I don’t think slavery and genocide could happen tomorrow, but things could still go pretty bad, in the short and medium term, especially if we assume everything will be just fine. And pseudoscience about race and intelligence could well be a part of those bad things happening. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/197 "2020-12-02T21:18:52Z")
> [@damuriajashi](#): > > I sort of did in a later post but the tldr version is that we haven’t had enough time to suss out longer term side effects. It’s my understanding that the reason this vaccine was developed so quickly is because the NIH has been anticipating and working on solutions for the Corona-type virus for nearly 10 years now. They have been testing the substrates for the RNA therapies and have worked on animal test studies in prep for something they knew was coming. When china published the COVID-19 genetic sequence, scientists recognized it and got to work almost immediately. Which is not to say there is no risk, but it sounds like a pretty low risk with relatively few serious unknowns. The length of efficacy of this vaccine being one of those. It sounds like the need for super-cold storage in the case of the Pfizer vaccine is another factor they may have been able to work around given more time. Are there other specifics you’re aware of that are worth consideration? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/198 "2020-12-02T21:20:12Z")
You don’t believe pseudoscience about race and intelligence could increase the chances of genocide, or the things that can lead to genocide (ethnic violence, etc.)? ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/199 "2020-12-02T21:21:19Z")
It’s not in my top ten reasons to worry, no. ---
**Author:** ![damuriajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac8455/32.png) [@damuriajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/damuriajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/200 "2020-12-02T21:22:32Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Are there other specifics you’re aware of that are worth consideration? Yes. The abbreviated period of human testing. If you get lucky and strike gold on the vaccine, you would normally still do animal testing before moving on to human testing. We more or less skipped that part and went straight to human testing, which is fine as long as you don’t also truncate the period of human testing. No amount of lab work is going to replace lengthy human testing to ensure safety. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672.md?page=11)