Race

[Pearlgem]

Never saw that textbook and would've raised a little hell about it if I had.

Nice to imagine so but you probably wouldn't, being a child and absorbing that information like hundreds and thousands of others in schools across the land. It was presented as the scientific orthodoxy of the time, not the crazy notion of some 'yahoo.' Just as well established 'facts' are sometimes challenged, eh?

And again I have to point out that the people who see the differences and treat others negatively because of them don't care about the legitimacy of the science, so they'll misuse the concept of evolution to come up with crap like that to support their point -- through either ignorance or malice. They will use every study in a twisted way to justify their beliefs and actions, regardless of the facts.

Again, it was the orthodoxy of the day and plenty of decent, non racist folk would have thought this must be true if scientists say so. People who discriminate in a nasty way can't justify their malice with any reasonable arguments - there aren't any. But they can maintain a 'racial difference' rationale for cultural hatred. The rest of us needn't buy into that.

It's a statistical fact that there are more blacks than whites in prison in the United States, despite there being more whites than blacks in the overall population. A racist is going to take that study and argue that blacks are predisposed to be criminals, despite the fact that there's nothing in the study to support the claim. So do we not do the study, try to determine the cause and address the societal and cultural issues that cause it just because the data is going to be misapplied by the ignorant?

The data I cited is out of date and discredited already - it's not some sort of recent rogue study. My point in presenting it was to show an example of the scientific orthodoxy of the day. Right thinking people can look back on that now and see that 'science' was actually erroneous and discriminatory. Perhaps we also may decide that the 'neutral,' 'unproblematic' scientific language we use today may be less neutral and more problematic that we imagine.

[Thorne]

The data I cited is out of date and discredited already - it's not some sort of recent rogue study. My point in presenting it was to show an example of the scientific orthodoxy of the day. Right thinking people can look back on that now and see that 'science' was actually erroneous and discriminatory. Perhaps we also may decide that the 'neutral,' 'unproblematic' scientific language we use today may be less neutral and more problematic that we imagine.

I shudder when I hear that phrase, "right thinking people". Right by whose standards? Your's? Mine? bin Laden's?

Anyone can claim anything to be a "scientific fact" whenever they wish. But the true test of science is when those "facts" are corroborated by other scientists and found to be accurate. Over and over again. And even then, a true scientist will rarely come out and say that something is the absolute truth. At best, we can only say that there is currently no evidence to refute the data (or confirm them).

[tusayan]

I shudder when I hear that phrase, "right thinking people". Right by whose standards? Your's? Mine? bin Laden's?

Anyone can claim anything to be a "scientific fact" whenever they wish. But the true test of science is when those "facts" are corroborated by other scientists and found to be accurate. Over and over again. And even then, a true scientist will rarely come out and say that something is the absolute truth. At best, we can only say that there is currently no evidence to refute the data (or confirm them).

That's a bit of a nihilistic view that anyone can claim anything to be a scientific fact. While that's true on the internet, maybe, the system of testing and peer review tends to correct for spurious claims in actual practice.

You're right in the strict sense of testing the null hypothesis that there is simply no evidence to refute the hypothesis (not the data, since the data often form the evidence but I think you probably meant to say that). You don't ever truly close the door to further testing, even of established ideas. However, there is also the principle that you sample to redundancy, then can be confident of the results. We are still learning about genetics in many ways but I'm confident we can jettison outdated concepts based on the available evidence.

In any case, don't want to jack the thread with philosophy of science talk so I'll leave it there.