Studies looking at anything biological and race all suffer from a fundamental flaw. There is no agreed upon biological (not social) definition of race. Any definition based on genetic differences must either conclude that there are many races originating within Africa, or only one race originating outside Africa.
Studies that divide subjects based on socially divided categories are not likely to demonstrate biological differences.
I’m saying, I don’t stay awake worrying about smart people and people of good will coming for me because somebody is promoting bad science.
Why is that a problem? I thought there were many races originating in Africa?
Can you give an example from one of the recent genocides? (Disturbing and depressing that that’s something one can say.)
I would say no. Just about everything could be used to injure or discriminate or to do some other negative action. But by the same token, they all have positive applications or implications as well. It’s all in how they’re actually applied.
Take for example, the research into cholinesterase inhibitors. Yes, they’re used as nerve gases for warfare and assassinations, but they’re also used for Alzheimer’s medication and very effective and generally safe insecticides. The research itself is neutral- it’s the applications that have ethical and moral concerns. Same thing with the research into the fundamental workings of the atom- it led to nuclear weapons, but it also led toward things like a lot of modern chemistry, nuclear power, and medical applications.
Neither do I. Is this thread about the fears that keep us up at night?
Sure: Incitement to genocide - Wikipedia
Such examples are not at all hard to find. Convincing one group that the other group is inherently inferior and/or malevolent is pretty much a necessary part of genocides.
At the risk of fighting the OP hypothetical:
-
Some scientific discoveries, if suppressed, will simply lead to an enemy finding it out anyway and using it for worse ends. If the U.S. did no nuclear research in WWII in the name of ethics, you’d see some other nation get the atom bomb first anyway. Which would be a worse outcome.
-
Squelching something can lead to the Streisand Effect, where even more people learn about it than would have otherwise.
I was talking specifically about racist pseudoscience, which has a different set of harms from, say, homeopathic pseudoscience. Without giving a pass to the latter, the former’s done a helluva lot more harm.
As for needing time to figure it out, I’m pretty comfortable that we’ve figured it out for racist pseudoscience. New theories purporting to show biological differences between socially-constructed races have a really high bar of skepticism to overcome, compared to other new hypotheses about, say, multiverse science.
More on how racist pseudoscience was a part of the Rwandan genocide: SciELO - Brasil - Phrenology and the Rwandan Genocide Phrenology and the Rwandan Genocide
Phrenology! Well, I’ve learned something.
Well, some people may lay awake at night worrying about bad science being done.
We each struggle with our own demons.
But I’d like to modify my previous answer, if I may. I do lay awake at night worrying about the smart person. The one who is also a racist. We saw what kind of damage a dumb racist can do and we’re not entirely sure we’re out of the woods yet. A smart racist may just do some real damage next time. And he - and why is it always a he? - anyway, he won’t be concerned with us calling him stupid because intelligence based or race is pseudoscience. Yeah, I worry about that guy. Much less concerned about people of good conscience, whatever their intelligence.
No. You haven’t.
And don’t confuse the two when you see your Nephrologist. They hate that.
This doesn’t appear to conflict with anything I’ve written, AFAICT.
You may claim this victory. I’ll take the next one. 
I think the justification comes after the will to commit the atrocities exists, after the hatred exists the hatred does not come from the justifications.
I think you have cause and effect mixed up. I think the hatred precedes the justifications.
The order doesn’t matter. The hatred is necessary. So are the justifications. Without the justifications, the genocide isn’t going to happen. They need the pseudoscience to motivate people to help their genocide.
No. They need to tell people lies and for people to believe those without questioning. Trump is my cite.
You are talking about genetic differences and I think Velocity might be talking about differences in intelligence that could arise from environmental factors.
I think the disconnect here might also stem from your use of the term pseudoscience, it’s not clear what you mean by that term. It is not like geocentrism which has been conclusively disproven. It is a controversial but unresolved issue on which there seems to be some controversy and differences of opinion.
It is an unproven racist theory. There are racial differences in IQ, this is either the result of nature or nurture. I think that the default should be that racial differences in IQ are attributable to environment absent some proof that the disparity is the result of inherent differences.
Of course the order matters. You are saying that the acknowledging racial differences in intelligence will somehow lead to genocide and slavery. That isn’t true.
Even without the justifications you can have genocide and slavery. Slavery was practiced around the world without these justifications. Genocide can exist without these justifications. Certainly without justifications of racial differences in intelligence, all that’s required is hatred.
Once again I think its a little silly to think that racial differences in intelligence will lead to genocide and slavery.