Pages - Menu

Sunday, 31 May 2009

Why Politicized Science Is Dangerous.....

Salam....after not  posting a post on time when i'm supposed to post,somehow i decided just to pay back with boring posts after boring posts for you guys to waste time reading.....lalalala

WARNING.....any words or phrase not understanded by the reader should not be a liability of the author,but on the contrary,the author expects each reader to explore the dictionary themselves,or putting it in simpler words,finding  the meaning theselves......thank you....:)

The author would like to say sorry for any wrong spellings or wrong facts.....the author would hope the any wrongs in this article would be improved by those with knowledge..lalalala

  Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis,and points to a way out.

 This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists,politicians,and celebrities around the world.Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies,and carried out at prestigious universities.The crisis is reported frequently in the media.The science in high school and college classrooms.

 NO,it is not global warming,it is another theory that rose to prominence about a century ago.....

 It's supporters includes public figures like Theodore Roosevelt,Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill.It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandies,who ruled in it's favor.Other famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell,Margaret Sanger(activist),botanist Luther Burbank,Leland Stanford(founder of Stanford University),novelist H.G. Wells,playwright George Bernand Shaw, and the list goes on.Even Nobel Prize winners give support.Reasearch was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations.The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research,but important work was also done at Harvard,Yale,Princeton,Stanford,and John Hopkins.Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

 These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences,the American Medical Association,and the National Research Council.

 All in all,the research,legislation, and molding of public opinion surrouding the theory went for almost half a century.Those  who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary,blind to reality.or just plain ignorant.But in hindsight,what is suprising is that few people objected.

 Today,we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience.The crisis it claimed was nonexistent.And the actions taken in the name of this theory were morally and criminally wrong.Ultimately,they led to the deaths of millions of people.

 Well,the theory was EUGENICS,and it's history is so dreadful---and,to those who were caught up in it,so embarrassing--that it is now rarely discussed.But it is a story that should be well known to everyone,so that it's horrors are not repeated.

 The theory eugenics postulated a crisis of a gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race.Basically it's just extreme racism.The best human beings(that being the White Man) were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones(everyone else,immigrants,Jews,Muslims,the unfit, even the 'feeble minded').Francis Galton,a respected British scientist,first speculated about this area,but his idea were taken far beyond anything he intended.They were adopted by science-minded Americans,as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races in the early twentieth century--'dangerous human pests' who represented 'the rising tide of imbeciles' and who are polluting the best of the human race.

 The eugenicists and the immigrationist joined forces to put a stop to this.The plan was to identify individuals who were 'feeble-minded'--Jews and Muslims were agreed to be largely feeble-minded,but so were many foreigners,as well as blacks-- and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.

 As Margaret Sanger said,'Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty.....there is no greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles.'She spoke of the burden of caring for 'this dead weight of human waste.'

 Making the story short,after World War II,nobody was a eugenicist,and nobody had ever been a eugenicist.Biographs of the celebrated did not dwell on the attractions of this philosophy to their subjects,and sometimes did not mention it at all.Eugenics ceased to be a subject for college classrooms,although some argue that it's ideas continue to have currency in disguised form.

 After a few days of skimming analysis of what is available to the public.The author have concluded that three points stand out.First,despite the construction of Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory,despite the efforts at universities and the pleadings of lawyers,there was no scientific basis for eugenics.In fact,nobody at the time knew what a gene really was.The movement was able to proceed because it employed vague terms never rigorously defined.'Feeble-mindedness' could mean anything from poverty and illiteracy to epilepsy(grin).Similarly,there was no clear definition of 'degenerate' or 'unfit'.

 Second,the eugenics movement was really a social program masquerading as a scientific one.What drove it was concern about immigration and racism and undesirable people moving into one's neighborhood or country.Once again,vague terminology helped conceal what was really going on.
 Third,and actually most distressing,the scientific establishment in both the United States and Germany did not mount any sustained protest.Quite the contrary.In Germany scientist quickly fell into line with the program.Modern German researchers have gone back to review Nazi documents from the 1930's.They found what Ute Deichman had to say,'Scientist,including those who were not members of the [Nazi]party,helped to get fundingfor their work through their modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state.'German scientist who opposed the program just,well,disappeared.

 Another example of politicized science is dangerous is about Trofim Denisovich Lysenko and Lysenkoism,the author suggests readers to find about this man and his story themselves.But the end was tragic.Famines that killed millions and many Russian scientists sent to the firing squads.

 Now were are engaged in a great new theory,the author would like to repeat,THEORY,not fact.And this theory once again has drawn the support of politicians,scientists,and celebrities around the world.Once again,the theory is promoted by major foundations.Once again,the research is carried out at prestigious universities.Once again,legislation is passed and social programs are urged in it's name.Once again,critics are few and harshly dealt with.

 Once again,the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science.Once again,groups with other agendas are hiding behing movements that appear high-minded.Once again,claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions.Once again,the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences.Once again,vague terms like sustainability and generational justice--terms that have no agreed definition--are employed in the service of a new crisis.

 The author is not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics.But the similarities are not superficial.And the author do claim that open and frank discussion of the data,and of the issues,is being suppressed.Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions on the side of global warming,which,the author argues,they have no business doing.Under the circumstances,any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.

 One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors.These individuals are no longer seeking grants,and no longer  have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.

 In science,the old men are usually wrong.But in politics,the old men are wise,counsel caution, and in the end are often right.

 The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale.People have killed thousands of human beings because people believed they had signed a contract with the devil,and had become witches.And still more than a thousand people each year a killed for witch-craft.In the author's view,there is only one way for humankind to emerge from what Carl Sagan called 'the demon-haunted world' of our past.That hope is called Islam,but before everyone excepts that truth,the author believes we should stick with science based on Islam.

 But as Alston Chase put it,'when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy,the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.'

 That is the danger we now face.And that is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination,with a bad history.We must remember the history,and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is what the BBC reporters calls it,disinterested and honest.

Quote George Santayana,'Those who forget the past are condemn to repeat it.'endquote.


lalalalala....can go to sleep now,gugugugu

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I am sorry to inform you but HERBERT SPENCER said "Fostering the good for nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme creulty...", not Margaret Sanger