# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Boudicca90](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boudicca90/32/16818_2.png) [@Boudicca90](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boudicca90)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/41 "2020-11-29T09:09:45Z")
I don’t think any scientific research should be suppressed or banned, but just like with the concept of free speech, you having the right to speech doesn’t mean anyone is entitled to give you a platform and megaphone. Same concept here. If someone produces research that has racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic consequences, no one is obliged to give it any consideration or platform to spread and it can be thrown into the garbage bin of terrible ideas, like with eugenics. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/42 "2020-11-29T09:14:22Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > Eugenics is an example of a scientific theory Ummm, do you know what a “scientific theory” actually is? ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/43 "2020-11-29T09:14:58Z")
Social Darwinism doesn’t only mean eugenics. That’s only part of it, and less relevant today. Today it’s often used to promote the idea that the rich and powerful are intrinsically ‘better’ or ‘more fit’ than others. See Ayn Rand. It’s used to justify laissez-faire capitalism, cut-throat competitiveness, social and financial inequality, authoritarianism, racism, and imperialism. It’s the idea that the poor, and usually also people of color, are inherently inferior and ‘weak’. Social Darwinism is currently very popular in right-wing circles, never mind that it’s unscientific and discredited. ---
**Author:** ![urbanredneck2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/5f8ce5/32.png) [@urbanredneck2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/urbanredneck2)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/44 "2020-11-29T11:44:23Z")
Cloning and artificial intelligence. Maybe I have watched too much science fiction but the above scares me. For example with cloning people could have clones of them and later on, harvest that clone for their exact body parts. Or they could create a class of subservient clones to act as servants and such. As for AI what really would keep a smart computer from taking over? ---
**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:** [November 29, 2020, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/45 "2020-11-29T13:05:52Z")
**Modnote** : This is in general and not aimed at anyone specifically. [GD rules specifically prohibit](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-rules-for-great-debates-and-elections-january-2020/845726) **Scientific racism** or any particular argument about why any particular group of humans is inherently better than any other group. So be careful, we will warn those that cross this line. ---
**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:** [November 29, 2020, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/46 "2020-11-29T13:32:13Z")
> [@urbanredneck2](#): > > Maybe I have watched too much science fiction but the above scares me. For example with cloning people could have clones of them and later on, harvest that clone for their exact body parts. Or they could create a class of subservient clones to act as servants and such. I read a dystopian scifi novel like that once. Rich people could pay to have a clone made of their child at birth, who would be kept in a medical facility and used for spare parts. The clones were normal humans and basically the identical twin of the rich person, but kept in really deprived conditions and not legally persons. > [@urbanredneck2](#): > > As for AI what really would keep a smart computer from taking over? Lack of opposable thumbs? 😉 ---
**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:** [November 29, 2020, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/47 "2020-11-29T14:05:29Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > But even so, what follows from settling the question? Let us suppose, for sake of argument, that it turns out to be nature. What should follow? Does it mean that girls should be discouraged from studying math? Of course not–there are some superb women mathematicians I’ve known. Does it mean that women should be encouraged to study math? I don’t think so, but you might disagree. On the other hand, should it turn out to be nurture (girls discouraged, not enough role models, whatever) that could be an important discovery. An interesting study cited in a mid 20-teens lecture by Robert Sapolsky showed results in math aptitude between male and female students in the most advanced and socially egalitarian nations around the world. On average, male students showed a greater aptitude for math than female students. One might conclude that on average, men have some sort of biological advantage to doing math related mental activities. If not for one country. In Iceland, on average, female students did slightly better than their male counterparts. Which answers the hypothesis about whether men are better than women at math – they are not. So a follow up question was asked; Given Iceland’s leading egalitarian social structure, why do fewer women pursue a STEM career option. Turns out the answer is not very straight forward and not necessarily one of social discrimination against women in certain STEM fields. Women appear to have greater interest in jobs that are not STEM focused, i.e. social sciences, education, medicine, etc… So the answer to the question about differences may be biology (nature; which isn’t to dismiss nurture) but not for reasons some have hypothesized. More studies are needed and likely on going. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/48 "2020-11-29T14:36:22Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > eugenics arose from Darwin’s theory of evolution The idea of eugenics (as a philosophical stance, not just the practical infanticide aspect, which is _much_ older) has been around since at least Plato. To save you looking it up - that’s ~400 BC. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/49 "2020-11-29T14:44:30Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > 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 This isn’t a theory; it’s a hypothesis. It’s a known and uncontroversial fact that physicists tend male and biologists tend female (compared to other scientists), but nobody yet knows why that’s the case. It might be biological, it might be cultural, it might be a combination. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/50 "2020-11-29T16:28:34Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > Lack of opposable thumbs? 😉 Yeah-A computer system has wiped out your bank account, ruined your credit score and put out numerous false arrest warrants in your name…but you win because you maintain the ability to carry a club. 🙄 Back to the main problem with your OP: You seem to have no concept as to what a “scientific theory” actually is. Can you clear this up, please? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/51 "2020-11-29T17:07:37Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > {…} Primarily religious people who think (correctly IMHO) that it encourages atheism, which in their view leads to a less moral society. {…} Exactly how does the Theory of Evolution\* “encourage atheism”? \*Evolution is an observed fact, the theory explains, as best as we currently can, how evolution happens. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/52 "2020-11-29T17:14:02Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Exactly how does the Theory of Evolution\* “encourage atheism”? I would say in that it contradicts the Bible. Anything that answers a question that used to be answered with “God did it” is something that could cause one to question what exactly it was that God did, and whether or not there is a need for a god at all to explain the universe. @DemonTree is correct that offering alternative explanations to the theological assertion enables atheism, but the religious people that she references are incorrect that it leads to a less moral society. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/53 "2020-11-29T17:31:29Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I would say in that it contradicts the Bible. Catholics, Episcopalians, and Jews all disagree with you. ---
**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:** [November 29, 2020, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/54 "2020-11-29T17:43:19Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Yeah-A computer system has wiped out your bank account, ruined your credit score and put out numerous false arrest warrants in your name…but you win because you maintain the ability to carry a club. 🙄 Am I using the wrong smiley to indicate a joke or something? > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Back to the main problem with your OP: You seem to have no concept as to what a “scientific theory” actually is. Can you clear this up, please? Perhaps ‘hypothesis’ or ‘potential theory’ would be better terms? An explanation for observed facts that we can find evidence for or against, and make a reasonable determination as to whether it’s correct or not. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/55 "2020-11-29T17:50:02Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > Catholics, Episcopalians, and Jews all disagree with you. A few things here, to respond to your cute little one liner. For one, we are talking about the people that @DemonTree is talking about, those who don’t agree with the Catholics, Episcopalians, and Jews who you are talking about. So no, Catholics, Episcopalians, and Jews would have nothing to disagree with me about the religious folk that @DemonTree is talking about feeling that evolution contradicts their beliefs. For two, while Catholics, Episcopalians, and Jews do not take the creation story as laid out in Genesis literally, they would still agree that the actual story _as told_ in the Bible is contradicted by modern evolutionary theory. This is the reason that they do not take it literally anymore. Finally, if you think that Catholics, Episcopalians, and Jews would disagree with me, what reason would _you_ say that Catholics, Episcopalians, and Jews would say that the religious people that @DemonTree references feel that evolutionary theory encourages atheism? You can disregard this if it was just the case that you chose not to take the context of the conversation into account when you composed your quip. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/56 "2020-11-29T17:50:56Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > Perhaps ‘hypothesis’ or ‘potential theory’ would be better terms? Try, “guess”, or even better, “unsubstantiated guess.” ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/57 "2020-11-29T17:53:55Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/58 "2020-11-29T17:54:50Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > I read a dystopian scifi novel like that once. Rich people could pay to have a clone made of their child at birth, who would be kept in a medical facility and used for spare parts. The clones were normal humans and basically the identical twin of the rich person, but kept in really deprived conditions and not legally persons. I’d have no problem with this if they were created in such a way as to not have any sort of higher brain function. Just enough to keep the body alive, but no thoughts, memories or any type of sentience. ---
**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:** [November 29, 2020, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/59 "2020-11-29T17:57:27Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I’d have no problem with this if they were created in such a way as to not have any sort of higher brain function. Just enough to keep the body alive, but no thoughts, memories or any type of sentience. Like a baby born with anencephaly? I’m guessing you _don’t_ think it would be okay to kill one of them in order to harvest their organs for transplant? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/60 "2020-11-29T17:57:28Z")
As there is no such thing as a scientific theory that is “true” then it’s less about nitpicking, and more about the very subject of the thread. If the OP doesn’t give a good definition of what it is that they are talking about, then that definition _does_ need to be determined within the thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672.md?page=4)