71–80 of 139 posts
This article linked at the bottom is interesting too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ne_supra_crepidam "Let the cobbler not judge beyond the shoe"
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=ultracrepidari...
People that enjoyed success in any field tend to think they can replicate in others. See Musk, whom believes that if he's done A or B right, makes him an expert on the entire alphabet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The key point is it’s not just ethically wrong, but it’s not scientific because it’s subjective and has no basis in reality. For instance, you cannot use genetic studies to define a race because for instance, in Africa, you could have massive genetic diversity in people that are 200 miles apart. That doesn’t make them different races. If you did attempt to classify people into races based on something scientific like…
That just means you can't call Africans one "race" because they hold all the genetic diversity on the planet. But it doesn't mean there's not some meaningful genetic grouping of populations that splintered out of Africa. Or, concretely, I'm struggling to square what you're saying with the fact that I tell my doctor I'm Hispanic because that means a higher genetic predisposition to things like diabetes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Oooph. I'm going to be charitable and make a (horrifying) steelman point for you: Eugenics can be understood as a subset of the ideas of plant and animal breeding that have been practiced for centuries. Those are scientifically sound, thus the idea that humans can be bred for certain traits should be too. THAT SAID , "Eugenics" as espoused and understood over the past two centuries isn't that at all. It's 100%, every…
That's called "artificial selection", and people who believe that certain groups of humans are somehow superior or inferior to each other because of differences in genetics would love for you to conflate "artificial selection" and "eugenics".
There's no need to steelman a concept that has caused unimaginable human suffering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's just completely outside of today's Overton window Never heard it expressed like that, but I guess you could apply it to tons of stuff? > Lobotomy is not scientifically unsound, as aswegs8 proves, it's just completely outside of today's Overton window.
I mean, if we wanted every human on Earth to be over 6' tall, we could just cull the short ones (or stop them from reproducing), and this is scientifically valid, but, of course, evil. As far as lobotomy, I don't know, but it seems to be widely discredited inasmuch as it didn't achieve its aims (or if it did, the aims themselves were highly questionable) Given the title, lobotomy is an apt reference "The originator o…
What's scientifically valid about that? What part of the scientific process is being utilized? What hypothesis is being tested?
If you're implying that people would start to be taller because we are culling short people, then you're talking about "artificial selection", not "eugenics". People who believe that there are groups of humans that are inferior or superior based on genetic differences would love for you to conflate the two concepts because that gets them closer to their political goals that have historically resulted in unimaginable human suffering.
> an informal term for the embrace of strange or scientifically unsound ideas by some Nobel Prize winners, usually later in life. It has been argued that the effect results, in part, from a tendency for Nobel winners to feel empowered by the award to speak on topics outside their specific area of expertise Sounds pretty much like every founder out there who strike gold once in the past now believing their genius now…