tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post2192720120614310012..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Does Jerry Coyne embrace what Scopes actually taught?mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger109125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-90688402913444911092013-12-22T08:59:09.031-05:002013-12-22T08:59:09.031-05:00and I woul add: it was thanks to the early experim...and I woul add: it was thanks to the early experiments made by Morgan that the early critics of the eugenics were silenced...<br />These are the quirks of history...domicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02775415782548456535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-44465159258202641612013-12-22T08:31:16.481-05:002013-12-22T08:31:16.481-05:00but if you had been a biology teacher in those yea...but if you had been a biology teacher in those years, and even more if you were a substitute without a proper training in that topic, would you have taught to your pupils what was written in the book?domicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02775415782548456535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-91367495088081900262013-12-20T18:09:32.189-05:002013-12-20T18:09:32.189-05:00Domics,
You keep on quoting one author for your a...Domics,<br /><br />You keep on quoting one author for your argument. Professor Marks might be correct, but he's still just one. You're still arguing from authority.<br /><br />It's not necessary for a lack of consensus to be shown by lack of active opposition. Just ignoring it is sufficient. Even if Thomas Hunt Morgan was tepid in his opposition to eugenics, he still wasn't in a consensus.<br /><br />It's difficult opposing a political position (which eugenics was - it was a civil policy) when you're not a politician.<br /><br />As an analogy. Einstein's relativity is established science. He won the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922, so relativity had the imprimature of the physics community and was consensus science.<br /><br />Right?<br /><br />Except, Einstein won the Nobel Prize for the photovoltaic effect. Relativity was still regarded as controversial and largely ignored. The Stockholm committee didn't think he was deserving of the prize in 1921 (no one was). When they awarded it to Nils Bohr in 1922, they decided to award Einstein with the 1921 award for his quantum physics work.<br /><br />To decide whether there was a consensus amongst scientists you need a survey of scientists. Which hadn't been done with eugenics.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-32218778644769155662013-12-20T07:30:51.350-05:002013-12-20T07:30:51.350-05:00deadset?
please again read Marks: "Morgan pu...deadset? <br />please again read Marks: "Morgan published some polite reservations about eugenics in the mid-1920s, but not enough either to piss anyone off or to allow people to invoke his prestige to repudiate the movement."<br />Polite and so irrilevant and not deadset...<br />domicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02775415782548456535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-61060162475526352392013-12-18T04:09:44.212-05:002013-12-18T04:09:44.212-05:00Domics,
You still don't get the point. I don...Domics,<br /><br />You still don't get the point. I don't have to prove that there wasn't a consensus amongst scientists with the appropriate expertise that eugenics was good science. It's up to the proponents of this position, that it was consensus amongst scientists that eugenics was good scientist, to provide proof.<br /><br />And the only way that that could have been done would have been a survey of scientists from that period on eugenics. Which hadn't been done.<br /><br />Anyway. Thomas Hunt Morgan, the most prominent geneticist of the period (he won the Nobel Prize for his genetics research in the '20s) was deadset against eugenics, so if authority is any indication, there was no consensus.<br /><br />Professor Marks referred to Charles Davenport as a leading geneticist in another of his essays (I think it was the one with 'Darwinism' in the title. Anyway, he wasn't a geneticist, let alone prominent or leading. He got into eugenics from his interest in chicken breeding. Selective breeding as had been done by humans for 12000 years.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-86463608557479419402013-12-18T03:36:14.745-05:002013-12-18T03:36:14.745-05:00You have read many books on the subject and then y...You have read many books on the subject and then you could easily quote someone who says that eugenics was not consensus among scientists. I'll wait for this quote. Or maybe you could easily list the name of 10 scientists who opposed eugenics at that time.<br />It is very strange that five of the first six presidents of the American Society of Human Genetics, founded in 1948 were also directors of the American Eugenics Society. Maybe also these presidents of the ASHG were not 'real' geneticists as Davenport.<br />Marks about Davenport writes 'influential' and not 'leading' and he was so influential that he was choses by the AAAS not only tho draft the official statement in support of the evolution but also to write in Science a series of informative articles in favor of evolutionary theory to ensure that public opinion was on the side of Scopes. Do not bother you that the American public was on the side of Scopes and evolution thanks to the intervention of one that you think is an incompetent? have I to dismiss the AAAS resolution because written by eugeneticists?<br />domicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02775415782548456535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13720294336877015102013-12-17T21:44:22.119-05:002013-12-17T21:44:22.119-05:00Domics,
You still don't get the point. Egnor...Domics,<br /><br />You still don't get the point. Egnor asserts that there's no debate that eugenics was consensus science in early 20th century American science.<br /><br />I'm merely stating that it's impossible to know whether it was consensus science without having done a survey of the opinions of the scientists with the appropriate expertise. Which hadn't been done.<br /><br />Continually referring to Professor Marks is just an appeal to authority, not to consensus about consensus. Charles Davenport was wrong with regard to eugenics. Professor Marks could very well be wrong about the consensus regarding eugenics, just as he was wrong regarding Charles Davenport when Professor Marks referred to Davenport as being a leading geneticist. Davenport wasn't a geneticist. He didn't work on genes. He was a proponent of selective breeding - as employed by humans for at least 12,000 years, without any idea of its mechanism.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-36291747275287214592013-12-17T06:43:46.499-05:002013-12-17T06:43:46.499-05:00OK, I suggest to the reader this paper by Jonathan...OK, I suggest to the reader this paper by Jonathan Marks on the Historiography of Eugenics and the three form of revisionism that the history of eugenics had in the U.S.A. <br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1682477/<br />I hope that times of revisionism are today ended.domicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02775415782548456535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-42359136029008796672013-12-14T21:07:44.607-05:002013-12-14T21:07:44.607-05:00I also don't think that anyone has noted that ...I also don't think that anyone has noted that John Scopes wasn't a biology teacher. He was a sports coach who occasionally acted as a substitute teacher. He majored in geology and politics at university.<br /><br />A business man wanted to put Dayton on the map by hosting a trial involving the anti-evolution law. Scopes volunteered to teach evolution by assigning his class the chapter on evolution in the proscribed biology text to be read overnight.<br /><br />And then confessed to doing so.<br /><br />Even if he taught eugenics, he wouldn't know what the science consensus was. Perhaps he might know who was shouting most about eugenics, and that would probably be the eugenecists.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-9269762944390227992013-12-14T16:53:00.960-05:002013-12-14T16:53:00.960-05:00Michael,
I would have taught whatever was on the ...Michael,<br /><br />I would have taught whatever was on the syllabus as mandated by the school board, to a level appropriate to the age of the students.<br /><br />There are topics in science of both consensus and controversy that are just too difficult to be mentioned in a science course. Or too recent to know whether they're valid. Such as genetics, which had only been rediscovered in 1900 (at least Mendel's work) and only beginning to really become of age in the 1920s with Morgan's work on fruit flies.<br /><br />That said, I hope I'd have the moral sense to not teach eugenics, if it was on the syllabus, or at least teach it badly. If Bryan had gone after eugenics instead of evolution, I would have approved entirely.<br /><br />And don't forget - he won the case. Evolution was deleted from the textbook but eugenics remained. Eugenics is just selective breeding, which humans have been doing for at least 12000 years, without any idea of evolution or genetics.<br /><br />Highly flawed selective breeding.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-55451508429536178562013-12-14T08:25:38.601-05:002013-12-14T08:25:38.601-05:00bach:
If you had been a biology teacher in 1925, ...bach:<br /><br />If you had been a biology teacher in 1925, would you have taught the consensus, or the controversy?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-42099626373878305202013-12-14T07:04:32.132-05:002013-12-14T07:04:32.132-05:00Domics,
I keep on repeating. To know whether the...Domics,<br /><br />I keep on repeating. To know whether there was s scientific consensus on eugenics, you would have needed to have done a survey of the opinions of a reasonable sample of the appropriate scientists.<br /><br />The opinion of one editor of a journal doesn't count as an indication of consensus.<br /><br />Professor Marks refers to Charles Davenport as a leading geneticist. He wasn't a geneticist. His eugenics work didn't work with genes. It was just reams of family histories that were useless scientifically. When the Cold Harbour lab closed no one wanted the material, it was so valueless.<br /><br />There was no consensus amongst geneticists. Morgan, the most prominent American geneticist of the time, was deadset against eugenics.<br /><br />It's my impression that people who thought that eugenics was good science had a consensus that eugenics was good science. The enthusiasm of its proponents drowned out its detractors. Rather similar to the physicists were claimed to have discovered a new form of radiation, n-waves, that no one else could detect.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-32558589750960514562013-12-14T05:48:59.572-05:002013-12-14T05:48:59.572-05:00Bachfiend I think you're an intelligent person...Bachfiend I think you're an intelligent person and you know the difference between publishing an article on the origin of the dogs and publishing an entire speech (from the first page of the magazine). If Science published that speech it meant that the editor (the AAAS) agreed with it (it was not dismissed).<br />Prof. Jonathan Marks writes: "The interesting aspect of the eugenics movement is that it was mainstream science... Every genetics textbook of the era advanced the case of eugenics... Perhaps the most interesting paradox in the history of eugenics is that the American human genetics community, faced with the embarrassment of the Nazi enthusiasm for eugenics, set out to reinvent itself after World War II... And then they taught that eugenics the old eugenics was the province of quacks and amateurs, and not the mainstream science that it really was.<br />And it worked, for a while..."<br />http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.html<br />Today it does not work. So please, do not make the same mistake American scientists made after World War II: to try to hide their responsibilities in the eugenics movement. <br /><br />Also my last doubt remains: why among thousands of members the AAAS chose three of the leading eugeneticists of the time to draft the resolution in favor of the evolution?<br />domicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02775415782548456535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-88645590477159927212013-12-13T20:03:29.215-05:002013-12-13T20:03:29.215-05:00Domics,
My point remains. To know whether eugeni...Domics,<br /><br />My point remains. To know whether eugenics has consensus science, you'd need to do a survey of scientists to see whether it was accepted as being likely to be true by a majority of scientists, and preferably an overwhelming majority of scientists. <br /><br />A 51% majority indicates that it's just hotly disputed.<br /><br />And the scientists need to have appropriate knowledge and experience regarding the topic. Astronomers don't have a consensus on eugenics. They just have an opinion.<br /><br />Professors with tenure in universities can teach whatever they want. Editors of journals can publish whatever they want. Being able to pick out some counter-examples doesn't necessarily mean that there was a consensus.<br /><br />To know that, you'd need to do the survey.<br /><br />Anyway. Even if Science published an article by Osborn, it doesn't mean it reflects consensus. Science recently published on the origin of domestic dogs, peer reviewed, which has promptly dismissed as being deeply flawed by all scientists I've read.<br /><br />My reading remains - eugenics was pushed by physicians and surgeons, who also had the means to put the pseudoscience into practice.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-36197750479482967672013-12-13T04:34:10.655-05:002013-12-13T04:34:10.655-05:00Comforting to know that un-scientific and without ...Comforting to know that un-scientific and without consensus stuff as eugenics was taught in most American universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. Conforting to know that the opening adress to the Second International Congress of Eugenics (un-scientific and without consensus stuff) made by Henry F. Osborn was published in its entirety in Science the journal of the American Association of the Advancement of Science...<br />The same Association gave support to Scopes with a document drafted by Osborn, Davenport and Conklin.<br />Osborn was a well known eugeneticist, Davenport was the leader of the eugenic movement in America, and Conklin was director of the American Eugenics Society (en passant none of them was a physician or surgeon). Strange that with all the scientists available, that according bachfiend were not in favor of the eugenics, AAAS chose these three! domicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02775415782548456535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-38825269691594012632013-12-11T16:59:04.266-05:002013-12-11T16:59:04.266-05:00Eugenics was pushed by physicians and surgeons. Wh...Eugenics was pushed by physicians and surgeons. Who aren't scientists. It was also pushed by certain ministers of religion, unfortunately (but not by the Catholic Church - having a hierarchy is often of benefit).bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-41243001025614411932013-12-11T16:53:59.522-05:002013-12-11T16:53:59.522-05:00Michael,
How do you know that eugenics was consen...Michael,<br /><br />How do you know that eugenics was consensus science in America? Or that evolutionary biology was racist? Please provide references, including lists of early American scientists and their opinions - with a final tabulation of the results.<br /><br />From my reading of 'War Against the Weak' and other books, too numerous to list, eugenics and race discrimination was an American phenomenon, and a result of slavery, the Civil War and its sequelae and mass migration from Europe.<br /><br />The 'ethnic melting pot' was a tongue in cheek piece of propaganda to conceal the strife caused by culturally different groups being dumped in the slums of cities such as New York.<br /><br />Britain didn't have the same degree of problems. Eugenics had virtually been dropped by the time of Galton's death. Racism wasn't such a problem despite being the home of evolutionary biology.<br /><br />American exceptionalism isn't always a good thing.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-72611881097149257882013-12-11T08:48:06.506-05:002013-12-11T08:48:06.506-05:00bach:
Eugenics was consensus science in the US fo...bach:<br /><br />Eugenics was consensus science in the US for half a century, and human evolutionary biology was racist. <br /><br />Those are statements of fact. There is no debate. megnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68837479245354203852013-12-11T08:44:54.475-05:002013-12-11T08:44:54.475-05:00TRISH:
[But you're tacitly admitting that th...TRISH:<br /><br /><br />[But you're tacitly admitting that this wasn't always so. Why then do you get so upset with the thesis of "From Darwin to Hitler"?]<br /><br />Touche. <br /><br />megnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-53429444211539277172013-12-11T07:40:34.817-05:002013-12-11T07:40:34.817-05:00TRISH,
I wonder whether you read Newton in all o...TRISH, <br /><br />I wonder whether you read Newton in all of his nakedness when you studied classical physics in high school. Very likely not. Reading <i>Principia</i> is one of the silliest way to learn classical physics. For one thing, the text is written in a tedious way that one could perhaps find engaging in the 17th century, but not today. The intervening generations have vastly improved the language of physics and mathematics. For another, it doesn't cover a tenth of what we cover in classical physics today. Energy is not there. No statics. No fluid mechanics. No vectors even. <br /><br />This is also why we don't study Darwin's <i>Origins</i>. First, lots of things in it are wrong or irrelevant. Second, evolutionary biology has a lot more than what Darwin started with. So hoping that evolutionary biology would be "exposed" if students read Darwin is one of the silliest ideas that have come from creationists. They don't understand how science works. They don't understand the education process, either.<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-73728110745663511212013-12-11T07:29:57.691-05:002013-12-11T07:29:57.691-05:00Trish,
I don't mind the blowtorch being appli...Trish,<br /><br />I don't mind the blowtorch being applied to theories I like, provided the blowtorch is being applied to the theories as formulated not some deliberately debased version of it.<br /><br />Consensus mightn't be perfect, but it's the best method we have for detecting theories approaching truth (as a general rule, all theories to some extent are incomplete, and some, even well accepted ones, are wrong).<br /><br />Mavericks with novel theories might be right. But they're much more likely to be just wrong.<br /><br />I think you ought to read of Darwin's works. Lots of luck.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-48212137019731260672013-12-11T07:08:14.134-05:002013-12-11T07:08:14.134-05:00Then likewise Darwin's views on race have no b...Then likewise Darwin's views on race have no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory. Goose, gander, all that.<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-48264533243706888522013-12-11T07:06:38.665-05:002013-12-11T07:06:38.665-05:00Calling Gene McCarthy "a mainstream Universit...Calling Gene McCarthy "a mainstream University of Georgia geneticist and evolutionary biologist" is a lie. He is neither affiliated with the U. of Georgia, nor can be referred to as a mainstream evolutionary biologist by any stretch. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-76205138080301170272013-12-11T06:27:07.911-05:002013-12-11T06:27:07.911-05:00Trish,
And you don't have any evidence that S...Trish,<br /><br />And you don't have any evidence that Scopes was a racist. He volunteered to teach evolution to challenge Tennessee's anti-evolution law.<br /><br />Actually, I doubt that eugenics was science consensus. Medical consensus perhaps. Many prominent eugenecists were doctors, and doctors aren't scientists.<br /><br />To have practical eugenics, you need doctors (with access to the residential institutes housing individuals thought to be innately inferior), and in particular surgeons (who else would be able to sterilise the individuals thought to be inferior?).<br /><br />Another thread were conservatives, who thought that the poor were innately inferior and also in the way.<br /><br />Anyway. I doubt that evolutionary biology ever was racist. It's up to those who think it was to demonstrate that there was a consensus amongst biologists that certain races are inherently, not culturally or economically, inferior.<br /><br />It's easy making such a claim. Proving it will be difficult.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-38481224600261318262013-12-11T06:08:04.366-05:002013-12-11T06:08:04.366-05:00So an amoeba is just as evolved as a human?
TRISH...So an amoeba is just as evolved as a human?<br /><br />TRISH Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com