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.
After all, the human genome project found several things that didn’t fit the popular narrative of race; that humans are genetically lacking in diversity. And that almost all human genetic diversity is contained within Africa.
How many people, let alone how many racists, are aware of observations like that?
Criminal acts such as destruction of GMO test fields seem to be the province of activists on the Left.
There are certainly examples of right-wing actions to suppress ideologically unacceptable research, such as the Trump Administration’s attempts to hamstring fetal tissue research by making it go through an “ethics” committee for approval (which happens to be heavily staffed by antiabortion types).
Overall, while the Left can take some pride in the fact that its political leaders are considerably less hostile to science than their rightist counterparts, there’s still plenty of work to be done in ensuring that science is not viewed through an ideological prism.
It will be interesting to see who gets in line for the Covid-19 vaccine and who screams about Freedom! and it being a plot by Bill Gates and Deep State to plant mind control chips into the population.
Sure, as was I, obviously.
My point is it didn’t get much traction since it didn’t fit with preconceived notions. If we had found that humans actually have four radically different groups, conforming to black, white, asian and native american, say, it would be common knowledge.
Well, it was “common knowledge” before it became antiquated knowledge. I feel like basic intro to biology in most elementary and middle schools is teaching the latest facts about the human genome. Old racists can’t be compelled to go back to school or learn things they don’t want to know, but kids being taught now won’t have the same misunderstanding of the human genome that their parents did.
The point is that mundane items have serious applications. The single chip computer used in many Mattel games was also the heart of the FU139 programmable fuze that was widely used in Desert Storm. The garage door opener that was available through distribution was an excellent remote detonator for land mines. These are applications rather than theories but so is much of what is discussed up thread.
The goodness or badness of these theories and applications is a value judgement. In the 1960s there was much discussion about the ethics of developing neutron weapons. These were imagined as weapons that did no physical damage but killed all living things. So, you could drop a neutron bomb one day and occupy an undamaged city the next. The ideal Capitalist weapon. The discussion made crisp distinctions. The reality is far more complex. At the time neutron weapons were seen as a defense against a soviet tank attack on western Europe. A low yield, neutron rich bomb could spread neutrons over the path of invading hordes of tanks. Trouble is the tanks shield the occupants from the neutrons, But, the neutrons activate the spent uranium that is used in the tank armor causing the tank crews and maintenance personnel to become ill and slowly die from radiation - long after they had completed any invasion. So, the ethical discussion was far removed from the realities that influenced development and demise of some neutron weapons.
Suppression of scientific theories and discoveries is impractical and based on value judgements. Should we have suppressed the discovery of bacteria because it could lead to biological weapons? I think not.
Probably comparable to the number of people who will go the “natural” route plus those who distrust anything from the Trump administration. Vaccine hesitancy knows no politics.
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”.
Well, I suppose I can appreciate a little skepticism and wanting to read the actual trial results for their own peace of mind. It’s a far cry from believing it’s a mind control plot by Bill Gates.
I have read a few folks who want the vaccine to be tested on “every member of the Trump family and administration” before they take it. They’re worried that the vaccine development was rushed in order to bolster Trump’s re-election chances, and that it might therefore not be as safe as other vaccines.
I see no reason to believe that theory, but I’ve definitely seen it.
Indeed; since many people appear to be discussing the possibility of science finding differences between “races” without pointing out that any such research would have to consider sub-Saharan Africa as being populated by a large number of different “races”.
You’re conflating suppression of research on scientific applications with suppression of scientific theories, a distinction I explicitly pointed out in the post you replied to:
Yup. If the OP or other posters want to extend the original topic to suppression of different kinds of scientific activity, fine by me. But Jackmannii’s examples don’t actually contradict the point I was making.
And I have yet seen any one suppress such research. Question it, critique it, disagree with its conclusions, those I have seen. Even refusing support or fund a specific line of research is not suppressing.
Most of the push back is not prevent the research, but rather to limit the amount of misuse or mischaracterization of the research by motivated parties outside the scientific community.
We’re dealing with four categories, and the approaches should be different for each one.
Scientific theories that are well accepted by the scientific community. Given the nature of the scientific method, no theory will ever be declared 100% correct. None the less, many are widely accepted. Things like evolution by natural selection, the Big Bang, quantum physics, relativity, etc. Those should not be suppressed in any way, and taught in science classes as being the generally accepted way things are.
Scientific hypothesis that have been shown to be incorrect. These are still scientific in the sense that they can be evaluated empirically but have been shown to be incorrect. Luminiferous ether, phlogiston, geocentricism, etc. These should be taught primarily as examples of how the scientific method works when hypothesis turns out to be wrong.
Scientific hypothesis that have not yet been shown to be incorrect but are also not yet widely accepted. String theory and the various proposals on how life originated (starting with DNA vs RNA vs proteins or some other substrate) are good examples. Here we should teach the evidence but not imply that any one theory is correct or widely accepted.
Hypothesis that aren’t scientific in the sense that they can’t be assessed empirically. These have no place in science class.
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’m happy to expand the topic to suppressing scientific applications and technology, but you’re right, I was intending suppression of theories. Your example of the DNA research in India is a better fit. They objected to the findings because they contradicted their beliefs, and maybe because of political ramifications.