Scientific racism, militarism, and the new atheists

[Mr.Peabody]

Listen, Scientific racism is the use of scientific techniques and hypotheses to sanction the belief in racial superiority, inferiority or racism.

Now obviously they're gonna come to some heavy pseudo scientific conclusions. BUT this does not erase the bond between science and racism, their history, and the issue in general. I never said that racism is a solid science and not pseudoscience, I simply said it was an issue involved with science.

What we've tried to say is that, if science had been conducted in it's proper manner, this bond would have never existed.

Why did this bond occur? The tendency for people to introduce their own bias.

The fact that these "pseudo-scientific" ideas have been disproven and discarded are proof of the scientific process, and it's ability to self-correct.

Will it happen again? Surely.

Will science overcome these failures of people who didn't follow the correct process? I'm confident it will, but I can't prove it.:lol:

 

[olympus mon]

what do you suggest as an alternative method to answering questions?
faith and mysticism? shall we go back to the dark ages, where illnesses were referred
to as "demons"?

exactly! Fairbanks what is your superior method of understanding the natural world? You throw out data, experimentation, peer review, observation, ....wtf then?

Look into a crystal ball or a golden plate?

 

[benzyme]

you could just as easily replace "scientific" with "religious", and "athiests" with "creationists", because dominionists
in my state tried to omit slavery from history textbooks, and evolution in biolohy books, in school.
shall we call it "ignorant spirituality"?

of course not. it's purely politics.

if you can show me how the scientific method can justify
racism, I will concede.

 

[fairbanks]

I'm not going to continue to argue with 4 or 5 different people at once, I don't have anymore energy.

SnozzleBerry,

I agree that we should look at the broader cultural context of both racism & science. I disagree that "scientific racism" is a meaningless phrase as you say. Again, allow me to forward you to this paper from University of North Carolina: History of Scientific Racism http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/Enc race Sci Racism Hist.pdf

Mr. Peabody,

I understand your point on pseudoscience, like said by others. But we only have the luxury of looking at that in retrospect. A lot of these pseudo scientific theories were held up as solid science for many years. Remember, Voltaire came to his racist conclusions on white superiority through empirical research. A lot of these scientists used the scientific method, gathered heaps of empirical data, presented their racist conclusions, and were accepted by the scientific community for the time being. This is why I believe we cannot dismiss the issue of scientific racism...It's up to you whether you want to actually look into the issue or just brush it off...

benz & olympus,

I believe that data & quantification provide a very limited view of the world. I don't have a "superior method" besides my own immediate experience in life. I think it's a mistake to compartmentalize the world, and claim that is the only knowledge available.

 

[Enoon]

I fail to understand what is being discussed in this thread. Are we coming to any conclusion? what was it we were trying to figure out?

Is there a point to this thread?

I think the main problem with science is that there are lots and lots of unknowns. We can make reasonable-sounding hypotheses and support them with things that we do understand through science, making it sound like the truth. We then build a theory on this and to people that don't understand the matter to the degree we do, it will be hard to differentiate jut where the hypothesis starts and where the facts end.

Thus we can make lots of things sound like scientific truth even though they are not. This still is science. Science is the evolution of lots of hypotheses that were later disproven and some rare ones proven. It fails to be science if you still cling to your hypothesis even when it was proven false, and it fails to be science if you are unwilling to accept that you might be wrong.

Either way this "problem" of science makes it easy to use it to push one's agenda, and some might not even realize that they are using a hypothesis rather than a truth. I think these things have happened with racism too.

so?

What was the question again? was there one?

 

[DeMenTed]

I honestly thought Scientific racism died with the nazi party. When hitler would refer to jewish scientists like einstein as stupid or non-sensical.

I see the o.p linked al jazeera and also linked something about Dawkins. I watched an interview with Dawkins a couple of months ago on al jazeera by a muslim scholar and it was all very good and fair until the the interviewer told Dawkins that he believed Mohammad flew up to god on a winged horse.

I think that what the o.p is talking about is a clash between science and religious views. I may be wrong though.

 

[fairbanks]

Thus we can make lots of things sound like scientific truth even though they are not. This still is science.

This was more or less what I was trying to get across. I don't understand the reasoning behind, "since we can see it's pseudoscience in retrospect, we can dismiss the issue of scientific racism altogether." It's just a fact that some scientists have put across racist theories throughout history, of course they get disproved, but this doesn't take away from the issue in the first place.

 

[benzyme]

I'm not going to dismiss history, like it never happened.
What I question are the methods used, and the purpose of the study.

 

[fairbanks]

I see the o.p linked al jazeera and also linked something about Dawkins. I watched an interview with Dawkins a couple of months ago on al jazeera by a muslim scholar and it was all very good and fair until the the interviewer told Dawkins that he believed Mohammad flew up to god on a winged horse.

You need to re-read, the Al Jazeera article wasn't about Dawkins more-so Sam Harris, Dawkins was only mentioned in one sentence. The article on Dawkins was from Salon. Also, I'd like to know, how it is unfair for someone to express their beliefs? Bigotry?

I think that what the o.p is talking about is a clash between science and religious views. I may be wrong though.

Contrary to what many people may think reading this thread, I'm not religious or entirely against science. & Contrary to popular belief of the conflict between science and religion, most historians of science reject this. Judeo-christian-islamic history is steeped in science. The first clock, invented by the monastery, was originally used for prayer. For Werner Von Brauhn, the purpose of rocketry and space were manifest destiny to spread the gospel (the first thing ate and drank on the moon was communion wafers and wine by Aldrin). Galileo despite being the poster boy for science vs religion was a devout christian... I mean the whole idea that science's sole purpose is to crush mystical thinking is simply not true. In fact, many scientists have used the method in attempt to further their religious beliefs.

just take a quick search on wikipedia for conflict thesis (religion vs science):

The conflict thesis is the proposition that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science and that the relationship between religion and science inevitably leads to public hostility. The thesis, refined beyond its most simplistic original forms, remains generally popular. However, historians of science no longer support it.[1][2][3][4]

 

[DeMenTed]

Galileo had to change his scientific view of the universe because of religious/political pressure but he still believed in the scientific view.

 

[fairbanks]

Look into the history of religious millennialism, and you'll find the most obvious connection between science, technology, and religion.

England and the Enlightenment played important roles in the development of technology as material means to spiritual ends. Soteriology (study of salvation) and eschatology (study of end-times) were common preoccupations in learned circles. Most educated men took very seriously the prophecy of Daniel that "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased" (Daniel 12:4) as a sign that The End was close.

Their attempts to increase knowledge about the world and improve human technology was not part of a dispassionate program to simply learn about the world, but instead to be active in millennarian expectations of Apocalypse. Technology played a key role in this as the means by which humans regained mastery over the natural world which was promised in Genesis but which humanity lost in the Fall. As historian Charles Webster observes, "The Puritans genuinely thought that each step in the conquest of nature represented a move towards the millennial condition."

As Margaret Jacob notes: "Almost every important seventeenth century English scientist or promoter of science from Robert Boyle to Isaac Newton believed in the approaching millennium." Accompanying this was the desire to recover the original Adamic perfection and knowledge lost with the Fall.

The Royal Society was founded in 1660 for the purpose of improving general knowledge and practical knowledge; its Fellows worked at experimental inquiries and the mechanical arts. Philosophically and scientifically, the founders were strongly influenced by Francis Bacon. John Wilkins, for example, claimed in The Beauty of Providence that the advancement of scientific knowledge would allow humanity to recover from the Fall.

Robert Hooke wrote that the Royal Society existed "to attempt the recovery of such allowable arts and inventions as are lost." Thomas Sprat was certain that science was the prefect way to establish "man's redemption." Robert Boyle thought that scientists had a special relationship with God — that they were "born the priest of nature" and that they would ultimately "have a far greater knowledge of God's wonderful universe than Adam himself could have had."

The Freemasons are a direct outgrowth and excellent example of this. In Masonic writings, God is identified very specifically as a practitioner of mechanical arts, most often as the "Great Architect" who had "the Liberal Sciences, particularly Geometry, written on his Heart." Members are encouraged to practice the same scientific arts not only to reclaim lost Adamic knowledge but also to become more God-like. Freemasonry was a means to redemption and perfection through the cultivation of science and technology.

A particular legacy of Freemasonry for the rest of society is the development of engineering as a profession by Freemasons in England. August Comte wrote of the role engineers would play in humanity's reclamation of Eden: "the establishment of the class of engineers... will, without doubt, constitute the direct and necessary instrument of coalition between men of science and industrialists, by which alone the new social order can commence." Comte suggested that they, the new priesthood, imitate priests and monks by renouncing pleasures of the flesh.

At this point it is worth noting that in the Genesis account, the Fall occurs when Adam and Eve eat fruit of knowledge — knowledge of good and evil. So it is ironic that we find scientists promoting an increase in knowledge in the pursuit of regaining the lost perfection. It isn't a complete contradiction, but it is a conflict which I have not seen resolved.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutreligion/a/TechnologyReligion.htm

 

[jamie]

science itself is just a method of observing things. It is not IMO perfect or even entirely objective for reasons I dont care to discuss but it is useful and has brought us certain advantages and will continue to do so..as well as continue to be abused to fuel sick agendas. People have twisted it around and used the knowlege gained for their own sick and demented agendas..einsteins work is a perfect example.

You can't claim science itself is racist or militaristic. People are those things..science is just a way to observe some things. Thats all.

You can find all kinds of discusing agendas that hide behind and abuse all kinds of systems, not just that of science. It is what it is I guess.

If people had no made observations and then tried to repeat them we would not have discovered and masters technologies like the wheel, fire, or hunting weapons. What has been done in the name of science by some people is discusting but should not be concidered to be an inherant trait of science itself.

 

[Mr.Peabody]

Thus we can make lots of things sound like scientific truth even though they are not. This still is science.

This was more or less what I was trying to get across. I don't understand the reasoning behind, "since we can see it's pseudoscience in retrospect, we can dismiss the issue of scientific racism altogether." It's just a fact that some scientists have put across racist theories throughout history, of course they get disproved, but this doesn't take away from the issue in the first place.

I completely agree! That was my point, although I am still not too keen on the term "scientific racism".

Be cause it has happened, and will likely happen again, hopefully we can learn from past incidents to hopefully prevent it. It has been disproved, and can hopefully be avoided.

There has yet to be another Hitler, at least on anything close to the same scale. Where there were similar people to Hitler, it was often in an area of the world with little to no education.

I didn't make it clear in my past posts, but these are my main thoughts. You have brought up a valid issue, and I think most of this thread has been a debate over the proper words to describe it. Hopefully this issue can be avoided by our knowledge of past incidents, and application of the correct actions.

 

[Pandora]

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.

As per Lisa Simpson: "Prayer, the last refuge of a scoundrel."

 

[fairbanks]

You can't claim science itself is racist or militaristic.

I never made this claim, do you remember reading:

My issue was not with science solely, it was with racism in science hence: scientific racism.

Jamie, please take a read of any of the multiple articles/essays I've linked to before rejecting scientific racism like the rest of this thread.

 

[fairbanks]

I completely agree! That was my point, although I am still not too keen on the term "scientific racism".

A History of Scientific Racism

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/Enc%20race%20Sci%20Racism%20Hist.pdf

 

[SnozzleBerry]

You keep posting the same tired article...I think it's safe to say that anyone who's interested in reading it now has more than enough links to pull it from.

Marks' work is simply an examination of the use of pseudoscientific methods, masked as "science," to justify/validate racist beliefs. You'll have to forgive me, but I find this incredibly boring for two (main) reasons.

1) As related to this thread; the issue is not with Science or the Scientific Method, but with racists attempting to justify their ideologies using pseudoscientific methodologies, cloaked as Science, in order to grant them the authority/legitimacy of scientific studies.

2) Marks' analysis essentially does not engage with the colonialist/imperialist (or capitalist) frameworks in which these people existed/exist...rendering the work little more than academic masturbation, imo.

Yes, people have attempted to mask their racist beliefs in something they have called science. So what? What is the utility of that knowledge? Imo, some of the issues that are actually interesting are:

1) How are such belief systems initially constructed and why is the facade of Science so appealing to use as a trojan horse for them?
2) How are such beliefs manipulated for presentation as Science?
3) What power do these belief systems have with/without the facade of science?
4) Who perpetuates/benefits from these belief systems?
5) How can these belief systems be deconstructed?

And this is just a brief list of rhetorical questions as I head to bed. For a more radical, albeit shorter, examination of the manifestation of racism in scientific fields and the actual mechanisms involved, here's an article worth glancing at.

Imo, the history of racist crackpots attempting to justify their ideas through Science is hardly a notable condemnation of Science as racist.

 

[fairbanks]

You keep posting the same tired article...I think it's safe to say that anyone who's interested in reading it now has more than enough links to pull it from.

I actually posted a few...Here's a couple more for you.

http://bernard.pitzer.edu/~hfairchi/pdf/ScientificRacism.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027795369090025N

Marks' work is simply an examination of the use of pseudoscientific methods, masked as "science," to justify/validate racist beliefs.

That's what scientific racism is....from wikipedia: Scientific racism is the use of pseudo-scientific techniques and hypotheses to support or justify the belief in racism, racial inferiority, or racial superiority, or alternatively the claim of "classifying" individuals of different phenotypes into discrete races or ethnicities.

My entire argument in this thread has been in defense of the reality of this issue and term. Meanwhile, you and others dismiss it, call it meaningless and boring yet define the term in your argument...It's ridiculous...

As related to this thread; the issue is not with Science or the Scientific Method, but with racists attempting to justify their ideologies using pseudoscientific methodologies, cloaked as Science, in order to grant them the authority/legitimacy of scientific studies.

Hilarious, you say it's not a scientific issue, then define, again, the issue called: scientific racism.

2) Marks' analysis essentially does not engage with the colonialist/imperialist (or capitalist) frameworks in which these people existed/exist...rendering the work little more than academic masturbation, imo.

I understand you think that it's important to look at the colonial/imperial/capitalist context, and I do too, but that's taking the discussion into a whole new realm. I don't think that because Mark didn't include this in his analysis that somehow renders his work obsolete or academic masturbation. Academic masturbation is when you write in purely theoretical/hypotheticals, Marks' analysis on the other hand was a straight-forward history of scientific racism, in which nowhere was he trying to pass of any grand hypothesis. Your statement just proves to me that you hardly read it, and you just want to discredit it. I mean seriously, the guy has got a 40 book bibliography for a 16 pg article, he's not just jerking off with theoretical insights, basically all of it is concrete historical citations...

In fact, if he were to start putting forward a theory on how colonial/capitalist context influenced these scientists, then he would, indeed, start the academic masturbation. So if anything your suggestions for the direction of this discussion are theoretical, hypothetical, & academic masturbation...

1) How are such belief systems initially constructed and why is the facade of Science so appealing to use as a trojan horse for them?
2) How are such beliefs manipulated for presentation as Science?
3) What power do these belief systems have with/without the facade of science?
4) Who perpetuates/benefits from these belief systems?
5) How can these belief systems be deconstructed?

Great questions, Marks' analysis actually covers in depth a few of them, specifically 1, 2, & 4, if you read it, that is ... I'll take a shot at #5, I believe that's the sole purpose of the concept, scientific racism, to deconstruct and analyze how and when these racist belief systems leak into the scientific institution.

For a more radical, albeit shorter, examination of the manifestation of racism in scientific fields and the actual mechanisms involved, here's an article worth glancing at.

Interesting article, so tell me again why you reject the term scientific racism yet link to a piece on it? It's a good isolated instance of scientific racism, thanks for that.

Imo, the history of racist crackpots attempting to justify their ideas through Science is hardly a notable condemnation of Science as racist.

This shows how much of a misunderstanding you have on my stance. This whole time I've just been trying to defend the reality of the issue/term, scientific racism, not that science is racist! :lol: That's the most ridiculous notion I've ever heard:lol: , and I don't appreciate you saying that this is my argument...:thumb_dow

 

[nen888]

..we're all the same species..scientifically 'race' is a myth really..good topic to raise fairbanks

scientific racism lies at the heart of some of the most insidious attempts to murder and control people in the 20thC
[YOUTUBE]

 

[Mr.Peabody]

fairbanks,
I find it funny you said you don't have the energy to argue any more, and then wrote your latest post!:lol: I guess you found some?


You've some stamina.


I understand you well, now, and like I said I agree with your issues and points. I realize "scientific racism" has a ring, and brevity on its side, but I don't think it's a very accurate label. But that's not what this thread is about!