| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/02/2010 12:02:41 PM · #1801 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't know what else to argue. I think I proved all my points. :D |
You always do.
To YOURSELF :D |
|
|
|
04/02/2010 12:29:26 PM · #1802 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't know what else to argue. I think I proved all my points. :D |
You always do.
To YOURSELF :D |
'tils all that matters, Ed...'tis all that matters...
|
|
|
|
04/02/2010 02:52:51 PM · #1803 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I sense that needs splaining. :-( In previous post, replace salsa with seltzer. Now I feel old. |
No, I got it. I'm gargling coke right now...
R. |
|
|
|
04/02/2010 03:21:45 PM · #1804 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Who votes to suspend this talk while all the hub-bub is going on? It just seems wrong to argue when the future of DPC is in the balance. |
You're just trying to sneak away because this should have ended on account of Godwin's law.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2010 03:31:13 PM · #1805 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Who votes to suspend this talk while all the hub-bub is going on? It just seems wrong to argue when the future of DPC is in the balance. |
You're just trying to sneak away because this should have ended on account of Godwin's law. |
Actually, to nitpick, Shannon brought up Mengele first. ;)
|
|
|
|
04/02/2010 03:53:23 PM · #1806 |
This is a really interesting read from the British Medical Journal on eugenics in the 20s and 30s and how such thinking reached much further than Germany with forced sterilizations. In fact, the US was taking part along with other countries such as Sweden, the UK, and Canada.
Eugenics and human rights
It's always good to know about history and I present it out of general interest rather than trying to make an explicit point.
Listen to this quote, by none other than our own SCOTUS:
“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.... Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Yikes!
Message edited by author 2010-04-02 15:54:33.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2010 03:58:30 PM · #1807 |
|
|
|
04/02/2010 03:59:44 PM · #1808 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is a really interesting read from the British Medical Journal on eugenics in the 20s and 30s and how such thinking reached much further than Germany with forced sterilizations. In fact, the US was taking part along with other countries such as Sweden, the UK, and Canada.
Eugenics and human rights
It's always good to know about history and I present it out of general interest rather than trying to make an explicit point.
Listen to this quote, by none other than our own SCOTUS:
“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.... Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Yikes! |
Had to go back to 1927 for that one. We've come a long way since then, . . . or maybe not. |
|
|
|
04/02/2010 05:56:12 PM · #1809 |
So is eugenics bad because coercion was involved? Because it was done by the state and they have no right? What if it's done with full cooperation? Does that change anything? What if it's done, not by the state, but by millions of couples looking to social engineer their own families (i.e. designer babies)? Would the elimination of something like Down Syndrome in this manner (i.e. not by cure) be considered a good or bad thing?
Prenatal Test Puts Down Syndrome in Hard Focus
Originally posted by article:
About 90 percent of pregnant women who are given a Down syndrome diagnosis have chosen to have an abortion. |
|
|
|
|
04/02/2010 06:49:02 PM · #1810 |
Originally posted by yanko:
So is eugenics bad because coercion was involved? Because it was done by the state and they have no right? What if it's done with full cooperation? Does that change anything? What if it's done, not by the state, but by millions of couples looking to social engineer their own families (i.e. designer babies)? Would the elimination of something like Down Syndrome in this manner (i.e. not by cure) be considered a good or bad thing?
Prenatal Test Puts Down Syndrome in Hard Focus
Originally posted by article:
About 90 percent of pregnant women who are given a Down syndrome diagnosis have chosen to have an abortion. |
|
The general idea of "bettering the human race" is fine it itself. It's the means that run afoul. If there are no moral brakes on the process then things tend to go south. The "science" behind the idea was also at fault because it postulated that there some of us are "less human" than others. This warped into the idea that such individuals did not deserve the same protections (outcomes ranging from force sterilization to death camps).
Certainly people who are against abortion would look at your example and see the same principles in play.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2010 06:57:44 PM · #1811 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If there are no moral brakes on the process then things tend to go south. The "science" behind the idea was also at fault because it postulated that there some of us are "less human" than others. |
The dehumanization aspect came from your "moral brakes." The notion of skin color or nationality making some less human than others was never based on scientific method. |
|
|
|
04/02/2010 07:02:59 PM · #1812 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The general idea of "bettering the human race" is fine it itself. It's the means that run afoul. If there are no moral brakes on the process then things tend to go south. |
Perhaps...but that issue in itself does not exist in a vacuum. Whose morals? Surely you of all people fully comprehend the fact that morals are a hodgepodge of the collective and on occasion are reflections of theological perspectives which may or may not have anything to do with reality.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The "science" behind the idea was also at fault because it postulated that there some of us are "less human" than others. This warped into the idea that such individuals did not deserve the same protections (outcomes ranging from force sterilization to death camps). |
Science can't be at fault as it only reflects input. What may be at fault is the interpretation of the data.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Certainly people who are against abortion would look at your example and see the same principles in play. |
...and in some instances they would be mistaken. No one condones murder, except in the case of self-defence or in a theatre of war, where seemingly the vast majority would view it in a different perspective. It could be argued that some might change their stance vis-a-vis abortion in certain circumstances.
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-04-02 19:20:30. |
|
|
|
04/02/2010 07:07:39 PM · #1813 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If there are no moral brakes on the process then things tend to go south. The "science" behind the idea was also at fault because it postulated that there some of us are "less human" than others. |
The dehumanization aspect came from your "moral brakes." The notion of skin color or nationality making some less human than others was never based on scientific method. |
You didn't read my article on Eugenics, did you? It utterly and completely rejects your statement. I put "less human" in quotes because what I really meant is somehow "less optimal human".
Originally posted by from the paper:
Modern eugenics was rooted in the social darwinism of the late 19th century, with all its metaphors of fitness, competition, and rationalisations of inequality. Indeed, Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin and an accomplished scientist in his own right, coined the word eugenics. Galton promoted the ideal of improving the human race by getting rid of the “undesirables” and multiplying the “desirables.” Eugenics began to flourish after the rediscovery, in 1900, of Mendel’s theory that the biological make up of organisms is determined by certain factors, later identified with genes. The application of mendelism to human beings reinforced the idea that we are determined almost entirely by our “germ plasm.”
Eugenic doctrines were articulated by physicians, mental health professionals, and scientists—notably biologists who were pursuing the new discipline of genetics—and were widely popularised in books, lectures, and articles for the educated public of the day. Publications were bolstered by the research pouring out of institutes for the study of eugenics or “race biology.” These had been established in several countries, including Denmark, Sweden, Britain, and the United States. The experts raised the spectre of social degeneration, insisting that “feebleminded” people (the term then commonly applied to people believed to be mentally retarded) were responsible for a wide range of social problems and were proliferating at a rate that threatened social resources and stability. Feebleminded women were held to be driven by a heedless sexuality, the product of biologically grounded flaws in their moral character that led them to prostitution and producing illegitimate children. “Hereditarian” biology attributed poverty and criminality to bad genes rather than to flaws in the social corpus. |
Message edited by author 2010-04-02 19:11:41.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2010 07:13:08 PM · #1814 |
Ray, I think I agree with you on what you are saying. Science is there to show us what is possible, but it should not (and cannot) tell us what ought to be done. This is why I reject Harris and why I raise the spectre of past failures. Eugenics only thrived when people failed to ask "even though we can do this, should we?"
Message edited by author 2010-04-02 19:13:32.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2010 07:58:32 PM · #1815 |
Submitted for your consideration:
Nature: How do morals change?
"[M]any psychologists think that the reasoned arguments we make about why we have certain beliefs are mostly post-hoc justifications for gut reactions. As the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt puts it, although we like to think of ourselves as judges, reasoning through cases according to deeply held principles, in reality we are more like lawyers, making arguments for positions that have already been established. This implies we have little conscious control over our sense of right and wrong.
I predict that this theory of morality will be proved wrong in its wholesale rejection of reason. Emotional responses alone cannot explain one of the most interesting aspects of human nature: that morals evolve. The extent of the average person's sympathies has grown substantially and continues to do so. Contemporary readers of Nature, for example, have different beliefs about the rights of women, racial minorities and homosexuals compared with readers in the late 1800s, and different intuitions about the morality of practices such as slavery, child labour and the abuse of animals for public entertainment. Rational deliberation and debate have played a large part in this development.
. . .
It would be a mistake as scientists — and as politically and socially engaged citizens — to dismiss the importance of this reflective process in shaping our morality and, consequently, the world in which we live. Research might focus more on how children and adults deal with everyday moral problems, looking closely at cases in which their judgements diverge from those of people around them. . . .
Psychologists have correctly emphasized that moral views make their impact by being translated into emotion. A complete theory must explain where these views come from in the first place." |
|
|
|
04/02/2010 08:07:08 PM · #1816 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ray, I think I agree with you on what you are saying. Science is there to show us what is possible, but it should not (and cannot) tell us what ought to be done. This is why I reject Harris and why I raise the spectre of past failures. Eugenics only thrived when people failed to ask "even though we can do this, should we?" |
Well eugenists essentially said we ought to do it because of a perceived benefit but you're right in that they didn't ask if they should. We've come to realize that they shouldn't have because it causes human suffering, which is what Harris says we should avoid. Yet you want to toss that concept out simply because some people in the past abused science? If that's the case how in the world do you keep religion at the table?
Edited for clarity.
Message edited by author 2010-04-02 20:17:45.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2010 08:19:16 PM · #1817 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ray, I think I agree with you on what you are saying. Science is there to show us what is possible, but it should not (and cannot) tell us what ought to be done. This is why I reject Harris and why I raise the spectre of past failures. Eugenics only thrived when people failed to ask "even though we can do this, should we?" |
No eugenics thrived because eugenists said we ought to fix what they thought was a weakness in humanity. You're right in that they didn't ask if they should. We've come to realize that they shouldn't have because it causes human suffering, the exact same thing which Harris says we should avoid. Yet you want to toss that concept out simply because some people in the past abused science? If that's the case how in the world do you keep religion at the table? |
No no no. I tossed the idea on its own merits. Eugenics is just a warning example and not the argument itself.
What's the formula for determining the amount of human suffering caused versus the amount it prevented? The SCOTUS quote said that the suffering put upon the feebleminded was outweighted by the prevented suffering of the executed criminal or the child who starved to death. "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind." The SCOTUS was trying to do the very thing you are saying, prevent human suffering. If your principle is obvious to us now, it certainly wasn't obvious to them then. How would we know we aren't falling into the exact same problem with how future generations will view us?
Message edited by author 2010-04-02 20:21:40.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2010 08:26:18 PM · #1818 |
Happy Easter. I'm headed to Seattle to spend the Holy Day with my family!
|
|
|
|
04/02/2010 08:45:26 PM · #1819 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Happy Easter. I'm headed to Seattle to spend the Holy Day with my family! |
I don't really get your last post (i.e. how a SCOTUS ruling regarding suffering relates to the actual use of science to determine suffering) but anyway, Happy Easter!
Message edited by author 2010-04-02 20:56:07.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2010 11:11:26 PM · #1820 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't know what else to argue. I think I proved all my points. :D |
You haven't even had my reply yet, in relation to Sam Harris' rebuttal. |
|
|
|
04/15/2010 05:57:46 AM · #1821 |
This is a fascinating article.
Using nonobvious organisms to study human genetic diseases
The concept is not too complicated. Genes work in combination within small networks to achieve certain results. It is possible to identify similar gene networks in different animals or plants and compare them to understand better how they work and how defects affect them - even if the consequence of a defect is very different.
For example, a defect in a gene network shared between humans and the worm c. elegans causes breast cancer in humans and an increase in male offspring in the worms (in each case the defect causes an X chromosome to be suppressed). The genes of the small flowering plant Arabidopsis thaliana might help to better understand mental retardation. Yeast genes can help us understand similar mammalian genes responsible for vasculature formation.
We have discovered previously unknown links between genes as a result of this research - links that might be obvious in, say, the way yeast reacts but not so in mammals.
The research is one of the clearest examples I have seen of advanced biological research with demonstrably positive and valuable outputs that also rests entirely upon the validity of evolution and a common ancestry with the plant and animal kingdoms.
Ironically, this research will no doubt be used to save the lives of many people who will deny that we could possibly be descended from a common ancestor with plantlife.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2010 02:54:55 PM · #1822 |
Evolution. Pffft. That's so 1850s...
|
|
|
|
04/15/2010 03:45:58 PM · #1823 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Evolution. Pffft. That's so 1850s... |
Apparently ...  |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 09:03:21 AM · #1824 |
Well I guess THIS settles it then:
Physicist Stephen Hawking says God wasn't necessary for the creation of the universe.
At any rate, the book is sure to be on my reading list this fall. |
|
|
|
09/02/2010 09:36:04 AM · #1825 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Physicist Stephen Hawking says God wasn't necessary for the creation of the universe. |
I was reading some comments on his article earlier this morning. So many basic misconceptions: what exploded if nothing existed before the big bang (as if the Big Bang was a detonation of stuff), who wrote the laws of gravity (as if physical laws are subject to decree), what came before the beginning of time (the 'what's north of the North Pole' question), the Big Bang is "just a theory" (confusing the scientific term with a guess). Shameful. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 07:53:17 AM EDT.
