To provide a counter-example, hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate are combined into a single dose as a treatment specifically for black folks with heart failure (initially sold under the brand name BiDil), because the combined drug treatment in general works measurably better on black folks than white folks, to the point that the combo drug was rejected by the FDA based on initial trials (that had a majority white patient base), but was later approved specifically for for black patients because that specific pair of drugs worked enough better in that population to be approved after further trials. It’s fallen somewhat out of use as a treatment, not because it was ineffective or “racist” to approve a race-specific treatment, but because better options have been developed in the last 20 years - the drug combo remains approved specifically for heart failure in black folks, however. It’s just no longer the first choice.
common social categories of race (scientists use ethnicity, because of eugenics),
Literally, they use ethnicity because of negative political associations with race as a term, and also because from a practical standpoint ethnicity is like race, but with more narrow groupings in modern parlance (as noted in the past “race” referred to much narrower groupings, closer to how ethnicity is used now).
Also, eugenics would totally work if we weren’t terrible at deciding what “good genes” are and instead inevitably make it about something dumb like skin color and there weren’t the massive ethical issues in actually doing it.
Here’s a fun question: If you had to choose a hypothesis that would be functionally impossible to properly test because of ethical or political issues but that you strongly suspect is true, what would it be?
It works if it weren’t unethical doesn’t make the argument you think it makes.
The notion that we suck at choosing the good genes is entirely misled, even if it is just sarcasm. The final question is also morally misled because science and the notion of truth is not amoral. Science, without humans, doesn’t exist. And humans are moral beings (constrained by social and moral considerations).
Eugenics is one such field which notions cannot be true because its axioms are inherently unethical. “It works” is not an isolated amoral argument. If it needs the morals of a society to be radically altered to work, then it is not science. It is just racism in a lab coat. The case of dog breeds, for example, doesn’t support eugenics. On the contrary it dispproves it.
We have genetically altered dogs (and many other animals) by selective breeding in ways that, according to eugenics, should’ve eliminated inbreeding and genetic defects. Guess what? it hasn’t done that and actually might have made it worse. Historical analysis lead us to the idea that running wild with eugenics will always lead to genocide, regardless of which genetic traits are selected as the best, eugenics is genocide. So, it cannot be severed from its ethical considerations. Science cannot exist devoid of ethics.
The notion that we suck at choosing the good genes is entirely misled, even if it is just sarcasm.
If we didn’t, we’d be talking about eugenics as that nasty unethical thing we tried once upon a time that eliminated say Huntington’s disease from a population, but we decided wasn’t worth it because of the ethical issues in actually doing it, rather than as just “racism in a lab coat”. The fact that eugenics in practice was about race at all is an example of us being bad at choosing “good genes.”
The final question is also morally misled because science and the notion of truth is not amoral. Science, without humans, doesn’t exist. And humans are moral beings (constrained by social and moral considerations).
Reality exists, and continues to regardless of whatever moral framework you subscribe to. Moral frameworks are specific to time and culture, what is acceptable politically even moreso. There are and will always be things that are real and are true and perhaps even useful to know or launching points for further understanding that are outside the range of current acceptable social, moral or political considerations, but that doesn’t make them less real.
To remove morality you have to remove humans. No humans, no politics and no science.
You can’t argue with that. You either have morals and science, or you have pure objective amoral reality but no humans.
Objective truth is an oxymoron, to have objectivity you have to remove the subject. Thus eliminating the dichotomy entirely and making the argument collapse. To have true-false value arguments and statements, you need subjectivity and a frame of reference. This is a logical constraint, without anyone to observe and judge the truth, there’s no objective reality to be judged. Minerals and crystals, despite our best efforts, do not elaborate moral judgements, and they definitely don’t conduct science.
Objective truth is an oxymoron, to have objectivity you have to remove the subject. Thus eliminating the dichotomy entirely and making the argument collapse. To have true-false value arguments and statements, you need subjectivity and a frame of reference. This is a logical constraint, without anyone to observe and judge the truth, there’s no objective reality to be judged. Minerals and crystals, despite our best efforts, do not elaborate moral judgements, and they definitely don’t conduct science.
So when the tree falls in the forest and no one is around not only does it not make a sound, but the forest and the tree don’t exist at all in the absence of a subjective observer?
Reality exists and continues to exist regardless of analysis or even consideration by any human. Science is a methodology invented by humans for trying to understand said reality. The earliest examples of scientific thinking are ancient and the social and moral frameworks they operated within are not at all similar to or very compatible at all with that of western Europe and North America in the early 21st century, yet underlying reality continues unabated. And yet we can continue to build off of their discoveries, despite them operating under moral and political frameworks that are abhorrent by modern standards.
You are confusing the map with the territory - the territory cares not that the mapmaker decided parts of it were immoral to include on the map the territory is what is, regardless of anyone’s perspective on it. Reality does not conform to the Overton window, only what we can say without running afoul of social, political or moral issues does.
So now we are quoting Korzibsky. Remember that its development, Bateson for example, has as a consequence of the ontological limitations of sensible experience, that one could say the territory is ultimately inaccessible to the mind. Why bother with it thus, since the hypothetical tree only exist because the mind has thus elaborated it and put it in the hypothetical forest to make it fall by sheer will of the model, based on previous sensible experience. A falling tree has to be observed and mapped, in order for a mind to conceive a tree that falls unseen. Its reality cannot be asserted but post-hoc, after observing evidence of its fall. Or ex-ante, by predicting its hypothetical fall by way of a priori evidence.
Or perhaps consider the Bonini’s paradox whereas a model as complex and specific as the reality it represents would be impractical and useless for science. To delve and insists on a science that removes the human is folly. The models we create exist entirely within the limits of the mind. Or as Brudilliard puts it:
Today abstraction is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror, or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: A hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. It is nevertheless the map that precedes the territory—precession of simulacra—that engenders the territory.
The model precedes reality. In fact, what reality we can think about if there is no thinking mind to model it? To question what reality would be without a human to think it, is circular idiocy. Suggesting to remove morality from the model requires one to create a thinker without morals, a non human, effectively an alien, that would not be any more real than the moral one. In fact, it would be further removed from reality, as the observer doesn’t exist but on the map. What reality can be attested by a meeple that stands over a map?
To provide a counter-example, hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate are combined into a single dose as a treatment specifically for black folks with heart failure (initially sold under the brand name BiDil), because the combined drug treatment in general works measurably better on black folks than white folks, to the point that the combo drug was rejected by the FDA based on initial trials (that had a majority white patient base), but was later approved specifically for for black patients because that specific pair of drugs worked enough better in that population to be approved after further trials. It’s fallen somewhat out of use as a treatment, not because it was ineffective or “racist” to approve a race-specific treatment, but because better options have been developed in the last 20 years - the drug combo remains approved specifically for heart failure in black folks, however. It’s just no longer the first choice.
Literally, they use ethnicity because of negative political associations with race as a term, and also because from a practical standpoint ethnicity is like race, but with more narrow groupings in modern parlance (as noted in the past “race” referred to much narrower groupings, closer to how ethnicity is used now).
Also, eugenics would totally work if we weren’t terrible at deciding what “good genes” are and instead inevitably make it about something dumb like skin color and there weren’t the massive ethical issues in actually doing it.
Here’s a fun question: If you had to choose a hypothesis that would be functionally impossible to properly test because of ethical or political issues but that you strongly suspect is true, what would it be?
It works if it weren’t unethical doesn’t make the argument you think it makes.
The notion that we suck at choosing the good genes is entirely misled, even if it is just sarcasm. The final question is also morally misled because science and the notion of truth is not amoral. Science, without humans, doesn’t exist. And humans are moral beings (constrained by social and moral considerations).
Eugenics is one such field which notions cannot be true because its axioms are inherently unethical. “It works” is not an isolated amoral argument. If it needs the morals of a society to be radically altered to work, then it is not science. It is just racism in a lab coat. The case of dog breeds, for example, doesn’t support eugenics. On the contrary it dispproves it.
We have genetically altered dogs (and many other animals) by selective breeding in ways that, according to eugenics, should’ve eliminated inbreeding and genetic defects. Guess what? it hasn’t done that and actually might have made it worse. Historical analysis lead us to the idea that running wild with eugenics will always lead to genocide, regardless of which genetic traits are selected as the best, eugenics is genocide. So, it cannot be severed from its ethical considerations. Science cannot exist devoid of ethics.
If we didn’t, we’d be talking about eugenics as that nasty unethical thing we tried once upon a time that eliminated say Huntington’s disease from a population, but we decided wasn’t worth it because of the ethical issues in actually doing it, rather than as just “racism in a lab coat”. The fact that eugenics in practice was about race at all is an example of us being bad at choosing “good genes.”
Reality exists, and continues to regardless of whatever moral framework you subscribe to. Moral frameworks are specific to time and culture, what is acceptable politically even moreso. There are and will always be things that are real and are true and perhaps even useful to know or launching points for further understanding that are outside the range of current acceptable social, moral or political considerations, but that doesn’t make them less real.
Truth is not limited to the Overton window.
To remove morality you have to remove humans. No humans, no politics and no science.
You can’t argue with that. You either have morals and science, or you have pure objective amoral reality but no humans.
Objective truth is an oxymoron, to have objectivity you have to remove the subject. Thus eliminating the dichotomy entirely and making the argument collapse. To have true-false value arguments and statements, you need subjectivity and a frame of reference. This is a logical constraint, without anyone to observe and judge the truth, there’s no objective reality to be judged. Minerals and crystals, despite our best efforts, do not elaborate moral judgements, and they definitely don’t conduct science.
So when the tree falls in the forest and no one is around not only does it not make a sound, but the forest and the tree don’t exist at all in the absence of a subjective observer?
Reality exists and continues to exist regardless of analysis or even consideration by any human. Science is a methodology invented by humans for trying to understand said reality. The earliest examples of scientific thinking are ancient and the social and moral frameworks they operated within are not at all similar to or very compatible at all with that of western Europe and North America in the early 21st century, yet underlying reality continues unabated. And yet we can continue to build off of their discoveries, despite them operating under moral and political frameworks that are abhorrent by modern standards.
You are confusing the map with the territory - the territory cares not that the mapmaker decided parts of it were immoral to include on the map the territory is what is, regardless of anyone’s perspective on it. Reality does not conform to the Overton window, only what we can say without running afoul of social, political or moral issues does.
So now we are quoting Korzibsky. Remember that its development, Bateson for example, has as a consequence of the ontological limitations of sensible experience, that one could say the territory is ultimately inaccessible to the mind. Why bother with it thus, since the hypothetical tree only exist because the mind has thus elaborated it and put it in the hypothetical forest to make it fall by sheer will of the model, based on previous sensible experience. A falling tree has to be observed and mapped, in order for a mind to conceive a tree that falls unseen. Its reality cannot be asserted but post-hoc, after observing evidence of its fall. Or ex-ante, by predicting its hypothetical fall by way of a priori evidence.
Or perhaps consider the Bonini’s paradox whereas a model as complex and specific as the reality it represents would be impractical and useless for science. To delve and insists on a science that removes the human is folly. The models we create exist entirely within the limits of the mind. Or as Brudilliard puts it:
The model precedes reality. In fact, what reality we can think about if there is no thinking mind to model it? To question what reality would be without a human to think it, is circular idiocy. Suggesting to remove morality from the model requires one to create a thinker without morals, a non human, effectively an alien, that would not be any more real than the moral one. In fact, it would be further removed from reality, as the observer doesn’t exist but on the map. What reality can be attested by a meeple that stands over a map?