[_ Old Earth _] social darwinism

[Barbarian]

racism is very powerful, that could have affected his bias on reasearch.

I think it did. But his opinions on races are no longer thought to be supportable, except for the part about every man having equal rights.

 

[jasoncran]

racism is very powerful, that could have affected his bias on reasearch.

I think it did. But his opinions on races are no longer thought to be supportable, except for the part about every man having equal rights.

i live in south most of life and its not uncommon for me to still hear some call blacks apes and monkeys.
of course not on races but he tried to use evolution to support that if you just said what i thought you said.

 

[Crying Rock]

"...This is what they mean by "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." As you see, Darwinism is diametrically opposed to social Dawinism..."

Why?

A. Darwin and his fellows objected to it on moral grounds.
B. Later Darwinians showed that it wouldn't work, anyway.

A. Darwin and his fellows objected to it on moral grounds.

What does this have to do with science?

B. Later Darwinians showed that it wouldn't work, anyway.

Why?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Darwin and his fellows objected to it on moral grounds.

What does this have to do with science?

Nothing at all. It's an ethical objection.

Barbarian observes:
Later Darwinians showed that it wouldn't work, anyway.

Why?

Recessives take many generations to clear. Punnett, I think, showed that eugenic programs would have to last longer than most civilizations have, in order to accomplish their goals.

 

[jasoncran]

science deals with morality now? i thought that was the job of the church and other faiths, and philosphers.

 

[Evointrinsic]

science deals with morality now? i thought that was the job of the church and other faiths, and philosphers.

Not on the teachings of what is right and wrong, but on the reasons we perceive right and wrong, than yes. Neuroscientific and psychiatric perspectives look into the details of morality quite thoroughly. Although I'm a bit puzzled on how you got "Morality deals with science" out of all this, especially after the consistent retelling of how Darwin didn't base his theory on morality.

 

[jasoncran]

science deals with morality now? i thought that was the job of the church and other faiths, and philosphers.

Not on the teachings of what is right and wrong, but on the reasons we perceive right and wrong, than yes. Neuroscientific and psychiatric perspectives look into the details of morality quite thoroughly. Although I'm a bit puzzled on how you got "Morality deals with science" out of all this, especially after the consistent retelling of how Darwin didn't base his theory on morality.

no he didnt but then agian when you have persons celebrating sanger who founded ppl, and was a eugencist her self. makes me go hmmm

and i missread that. my bad.

 

[jasoncran]

related to this, though i could start another thread on the ethics of this.

http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/14665

 

[Barbarian]

science deals with morality now?

No, but scientists often do. Human, you know.

i thought that was the job of the church and other faiths, and philosphers.

It's a job for each of us.

 

[jasoncran]

yup, barb, and it aint looking good. :verysad
even so lord come. :D