# 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:** 4
**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, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/61 "2020-11-29T17:58:22Z")
> [@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. Well, yes, the question is about scientific theories, not shit pull from asses. ---
**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, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/62 "2020-11-29T17:58:31Z")
And how long do they usually live? If a baby with anencephaly could be used to save the life of another baby (or babies) that is otherwise healthy, would you say that it should not be used as an organ transplant donor? ---
**Author:** ![ArtBeforeScience](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/73ab20/32.png) [@ArtBeforeScience](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArtBeforeScience)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/63 "2020-11-29T18:06:52Z")
I don’t know if the theories themselves are harmful, or the people citing them. I pay attention to who is speaking because if a monster-troll cites a theory, why? They must be up to something. There are also “facts” and then not-so-facts. 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. ---
**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, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/64 "2020-11-29T18:07:09Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > If a baby with anencephaly could be used to save the life of another baby (or babies) that is otherwise healthy, would you say that it should not be used as an organ transplant donor? _After_ the baby has died, and if the parents agree, then sure. /\>~ ---
**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, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/65 "2020-11-29T18:16:11Z")
> [@ArtBeforeScience](#): > > There are also “facts” and then not-so-facts. 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. Isn’t IQ defined as the thing an IQ test measures? What else would it be? ---
**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, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/66 "2020-11-29T18:17:29Z")
If the parents agree, of course. But it actually generally happens before the baby is _dead_, as at that point, the organs are no longer viable. In any case, to my point, I would feel no different in having a brainless clone made from my DNA to serve as spare parts than I would accepting a heart from someone who had their head caved in in a motorcycle accident. Better, actually, as the motorcycle rider probably had friends and family who will miss them. And something made from my DNA is going to be accepted better by my body. Certainly _some_ ethical considerations to be made, to ensure that the clones do not develop any sort of brain function, but as long as that can be handled adequately, I think that it would be a great advance in medical science. Alternatively, if we gave pigs just enough human DNA that they had organs that were compatible, I’d be down for that too. ---
**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:** [November 29, 2020, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/67 "2020-11-29T18:18:03Z")
> [@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. Well said. Working forward from your gloss on the OP which has, I think, the benefit of being value-neutral. A “theory” is a functional explanation for _how_ or _why_ something happens. It therefore can make predictions. In some sense all theories are tentative in that they remain useful until we have enough evidence that contradicts their predictions. The theory that > Here on Earth the Sun rises in the East every roughly 24 hours because blah blah blah … is vanishly unlikely to be disproven later. But “vanishly unlikely” is not impossible. Which tiny crack is the place the CTer’s foolishly hang their pointy hats. Just as the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the value of a theory is in the predictions. Now the premise: > 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_. Unless getting to that understanding takes gargantuan tools like a supercomputer cluster or a CERN, soon enough somebody else will figure out the same thing. So at best you’re delaying the inevitable. Which might be slightly useful but is ultimately futile. Further, if the thing is horrific and through the theory we understand the causality, we open the _opportunity_ to intervene in the causal chain to repair the horror in the world. The _results_, the _what_, of the consequences of lead in gasoline and R-22 refrigerant in widespread use were horrific. But were unnoticed or unattributed until theory caught up. And once we had the theory = understood the causation, we could and did fix it. To be sure changing anything in society or economics makes somebody unhappy. The car makers, oil companies, HVAC makers, and chemical industry were none too happy about the consequences of these theories. * * * \* Yes, I know the correct word is "horror". I'm having fun. ---
**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, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/68 "2020-11-29T18:18:20Z")
Some people think that it measures intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/69 "2020-11-29T18:21:37Z")
> [@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. Has it ever been done in the past? First show me the scientific theory that “is true” (or stands up to scrutiny) but is, should be, or has been suppressed, and we might have something to discuss. As it stands, this all just seems too speculative. Nuclear fission and atomic theory, for instance. That’s scientific, stands up to scrutiny, and has potentially terrible implications. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/70 "2020-11-29T18:24:57Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Exactly how does the Theory of Evolution\* “encourage atheism”? It explains the apparent complex design found in nature without requiring a designer. ---
**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, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/71 "2020-11-29T18:27:14Z")
So, by reasonable extension, all science is too harmful to allow into the public sphere. ---
**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, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/72 "2020-11-29T18:28:20Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > But it actually generally happens before the baby is _dead_ , as at that point, the organs are no longer viable. You’re saying most organ donors are not yet dead when their organs are removed? ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/73 "2020-11-29T18:29:41Z")
@crowmanyclouds, I can’t help but feel like there is some well poisoning in the OP. Because it goes from science to pseudoscience as if there is no distinction. ---
**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, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/74 "2020-11-29T18:31:29Z")
That would be because the OP has conclusions that they want to be ‘true’, science or no. ---
**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, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/75 "2020-11-29T18:34:10Z")
The OP question, rephrased, is essentially, “Is appeal-to-consequences ever a legit approach?” ---
**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, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/76 "2020-11-29T18:34:21Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > You’re saying most organ donors are not yet dead when their organs are removed? The words are right there to be read, so try again. ---
**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, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/77 "2020-11-29T18:35:39Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > The OP question, rephrased, is essentially, “Is appeal-to-consequences ever a legit approach? It is…if you leave out the inaccurate terminology and the bad examples. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/78 "2020-11-29T18:36:27Z")
> [@ArtBeforeScience](#): > > 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. Not really. It’s well understood and uncontroversial that there is a significant correlation in cognitive performance across widely varying cognitive tasks. The _general intelligence_ factor explains about half of the performance differences between individuals on a given cognitive challenge. That’s what IQ tests are seeking to measure. There are certainly major issues with the implementation of IQ tests, about _how well_ they measure general intelligence, but it’s clear what they are _trying_ to measure. > **[g factor (psychometrics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics))** > > The g factor (also known as general intelligence, general mental ability or general intelligence factor) is a construct developed in psychometric investigations of cognitive abilities and human intelligence. It is a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the fact that an individual's performance on one type of cognitive task tends to be comparable to that person's performance on other kinds of cognitive tasks. The g factor typically accounts fo... ---
**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, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/79 "2020-11-29T18:39:05Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > The OP question, rephrased, is essentially, “Is appeal-to-consequences ever a legit approach?” Yeah, that’s about right. The examples were ones which came up on this board recently, except evolution which has been debated to death with creationists already. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672/80 "2020-11-29T18:41:42Z")
As previous experiences have shown me, many do think that, the good news is that most people do not agree with that. [Unfortunately many of the few that want to suppress things like evolution are powerful and are constantly making efforts to suppress the teaching of science that is inconvenient to them.](https://ncse.ngo/catalyzing-action) The pressure from those groups to teachers in the US is unrelenting. > **[Supporting Teachers | National Center for Science Education](https://ncse.ngo/supporting-teachers)** > > National surveys show that 40% to 60% of U.S. public school science teachers hedge, equivocate, or send a mixed message when they teach evolution or climate change. NCSE aims to help all of them improve their teaching practices. Read our surveys... National surveys show that 40% to 60% of U.S. public school science teachers hedge, equivocate, or send a mixed message when they teach evolution or climate change. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-some-scientific-theories-so-harmful-they-should-be-suppressed/926672.md?page=5)