here's my definition, you're a big fan of the "new atheist" scientists like Dawkins and Harris and can't bear to see them in this light...

Now, now... play nice.


This is why we can't have nice things

I used to engage in philosophical ponderings and ambiguous mental wankery,
but circular arguments, debasing other philosophers..
it just didn't keep my interest. I needed assays to run, where results
either accepted or rejected the null hypothesis.

~benz the heretic

I pray for your cold mechanical soul.

But really, were you a Dawkins/Harris reader? Just wondering, kinda interested.

But, racism and mysogeny in the name of science, (especially) in the past, is not oxymoronic though it should be. How many times have we seen folks riding the hate train, quoting one non-replicated sketch study and calling it scientific?

I benzyme's soul. It's people like him who are going to truly save the world/us all. Not the religious hate mongers. He and his family work to do things like actively fight AIDS using the tools of science.

What have the religous hate mongers and their "souls" truly done for our cold and mechanical society?

nope, I was a Merck Index reader.

and praying should be reserved for self-improvement,
not imposing will on others.. that's akin to magic spells,
and other witch foolery.

that's again where politics comes in. throw enough money
at a study, and you can get whatever interpretation you want

it was just a joke lol...

merck index is some serious bizness, you ever try fiction?

of course, I read the bible, and where the sidewalk ends... when I was 7.

where the sidewalk ends is classic!!



I don't think scientism is a good approach to take, science has caused just as many problems as it has solved. Scientific and technological imperialism have just as long a history as religious imperialism. In fact, religion and science are not polar opposites, many of the first applied science was from the monastery. What was the original purpose of the clock? Prayer timing.

Actually...no.

None of the studies/schools of thought that have attempted to cement racist ideologies through theoretical/practical "scientific" approaches have been able to establish their claims via the scientific method (or they have had their claims refuted via scientific review).


Indeed...but these studies/claims have always fallen apart under scientific scrutiny. Lending further credence to Benz's statements.

Oh really? Here, let me give you a list. Of course, theories have been refuted and eventually disproven. But many were cemented in certain societies for many many years, and even fueled major wars... I don't think you can say that racism is not a scientific matter, because clearly throughout history it has been.

Carl Linnaeus
Georges Cuvier
Blumenbach and Buffon
John Hunter
Christoph Meiners
Voltaire
John Mitchell
Samuel Stanhope Smith
Benjamin Rush
Immanuel Kant
Lord Kames
G.W.F. Hegel
Arthur Schopenhauer
Charles White
Franz Ignaz Pruner

Also, here's a paper on the subject.

Scientific Racism: The Cloak of Objectivity
http://bernard.pitzer.edu/~hfairchi/pdf/ScientificRacism.pdf

Exactly

I agree, but... isn´t "science" a social construct as well? (i.e. invented in a particular society at a particular point of history)?

The name of science has often been used to mask and legitimize subjective "social constructs," with absolutely real - and often deadly - consequences.

Science can be used to promote racism (see eugenics, 19th century anthropology or craniology etc.), as well as to debunk racism. In other words, science can be used for various political purposes, racism and fascism included.

don't confuse science with politics ("political science" )completely different methodologies.

No, not exactly. It's not that simple as, "oh if it's eventually proven pseudoscientific then we can just forget about the scientific racism issue." Science has throughout history and most likely will always be a tool for racism, therefore racism is a scientific issue.

SnozzleBerry, you're in anthropology, a field that has dug up many ancestry graves of native peoples throughout the world. It's generally established now in the field as malpractice, but many still do it. So by your logic, the issue of grave digging is no longer antropological?

I recommend this paper:

Scientific Racism: The Cloak of Objectivity
http://bernard.pitzer.edu/~hfairchi/pdf/ScientificRacism.pdf

why don't you suggest a sociology book? racism is more of a sociological
issue.

'cause it's the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friend...

(I edited my previous post a little while you were responding, I apologize for that)

I hope I´m not confusing science and politics myself. However, when I look at our history (eugenics, scientific racism of 19th and 20th century anthropology/craniology, later ´science´ in Soviet Union etc.), I see that science has probably always been (ab)used for different political goals. Thats what I wanted to say: desipte the possibility of its "neutral" value, science has always been situated politically.

I have been pursuing a scientific career myself. Everyday I go to work, I see how "science" is subjected to "political" agenda. It makes me sad.

You still seem to mix up politics with the scientific method. Anything can be misused by politics and that means it is an issue of politics and not of ALL the other things in the world that can be misused by politics.

Or do you think that ethnic racism misused by politics is an ethnicity issue?



Picking out one example of something that is abused by politics and then blaming that item for it instead of the politics is making no sense.

There are many more examples how politics misuse other things besides science for their own agenda, science is just one of the many and therefor singling it out and presenting it as THE issue is making a false dilemma.



Kind regards,

The Traveler