A Scientific Worldview?
by MikeGeneIn their letter to Nature, Coyne et al. write:
The real business of science teachers is to teach science, not to help students shore up worldviews that crumble when they learn science.
Okay, so what might be a "scientifically approved" worldview? Perhaps we should look to one of the signers of the letter "“ James Watson, the Nobel Laureate who helped decipher the double helix model of DNA.
James Watson is a eugenicist. His views are discussed in an article by Ralph Brave.
Let's consider a few excerpts:
But what exactly are Watson's eugenics intentions? How would he design better human beings? The germ-line intervention that he and other advocates most often mention is improvements to the immune system. There is a gene, for example, which provides absolute resistance to the AIDS virus. If it were possible to safely implant such a gene into an embryo, who would object? Or a gene that similarly protected someone against SARS or an even more deadly emerging infectious disease?
Such germ-line alterations are viewed cynically by Watson, though, as a means to other ends: the wedge that will open the door to further engineering. "I think that the acceptance of genetic enhancement," he writes in his new book, "will most likely come through efforts to prevent disease."
My, it looks like we have another "wedge." As scientists advance technology with things such as human cloning, are they opening the door to a new world of neo-eugenics? Many think so. Brave talks about the Trojan horse strategy some more:
Discussion of this agenda is something Watson is not interested in conducting, whether it's with a journalist or with Congress. "I'm afraid of asking people what they think," he admitted in 1998. "Don't ask Congress to approve it. Just ask them for the money to help their constituents. That's what they want … . Frankly, they would care much more about having their relatives not sick than they do about ethics and principles. We can talk principles forever, but what the public actually wants is not to be sick. And if we help them not be sick, they'll be on our side."
By keeping the focus on "curing diseases", the eugenicist can piggyback his agenda on the back of this noble cause. Why? The very technology being pursued to cure a genetic disease would make old school eugenicists salivate. As Brave further notes:
Once again, treating genetic illness is as much a ploy as it is a therapeutic achievement: If Watson and friends keep our DNA trains running on time, the argument goes, then we'll let them proceed with germline genetic enhancements.
And how shall we "enhance" the human gene pool?
The range of potential genetic enhancements at this point is almost entirely a matter of speculation. But Watson is not shy about suggesting his own eugenic targets. In a British documentary on his life and work to be broadcast in the U.S. this fall, Watson announces that he'd like to genetically treat the 10 percent of children whom he considers "stupid" and prevent the birth of ugly girls. "If you really are stupid, I would call that a disease," Watson says. Furthermore, "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."
The eugenicists have a long history of being displeased with the "stupid." They used to have various scientific categories- idiots, morons, feeble-minded, etc. Some scientific advances just never go away, I suppose.
But Watson doesn't want to simply stop with the existing human genetic repertoire. Remember, Watson wants to "add genes," meaning genes from outside the existing human gene pool. Just to make certain that I wasn't mistaken on this, I tracked Watson down in February at the Time Magazine "Future of Life" conference. By adding genes, were you referring to genes from other plant or animal species or even artificial genes created in the laboratory? I asked Watson. "Anything!" he spat back, and turned away as if the question were not even worthy of discussion.
Watson proposes that we alter the human gene pool and when asked about it, he responds with dismissive elitism. Surprised?
Watson also appeals to more scientists to "stand tall":
"My view," he concludes, "is that, despite the risks, we should give serious consideration to germ-line gene therapy. I only hope," he plaintively appeals, "that the many biologists who share my opinion will stand tall in the debates to come and not be intimidated by the inevitable criticism … If such work be called eugenics, then I am a eugenicist."
Finally, Brave includes a most illuminating quote:
Rescuing the word eugenics from its pernicious past, Watson knows that inevitably the connection with Naziism will arise. But he's well prepared for this. "Here we must not fall into the absurd trap of being against everything Hitler was for," he wrote a few years ago. "Because of Hitler's use of the term Master Race, we should not feel the need to say that we never want to use genetics to make humans more capable than they are today."
That darn Hitler really threw a kink into the eugenic agenda! Come now people, at least when it came to eugenics, Hitler got that part right!
But is Watson alone?
As with most other developments in the life sciences, three camps have formed over the germ-line issue: those who join Watson's choir in favor of germline engineering, those who adamantly oppose any germline interventions, and those who believe that there may be instances in which germline engineering is justified and should be managed under some regulatory regime. The Watsonians include Princeton biologist Lee Silver and University of Manchester bioethicist John Harris.
Lee Silver? John Harris? Hmmmm.
June 6th, 2005 at 12:19 am
I have to say this is a peculiar post. Given the intro, I expected to see a discussion of the merits, or otherwise of teaching ID in schools. I was disapointed. Mike quickly segues into a discussion of James Watson's "eugenicism".
The segue is itself interesting. Coyne et al wrote a spirited letter condemning any tampering with science education to support any world view. They did not divide the world into scientifically approved, and scientifically disapproved world views. Rather, they objected equally to undercutting science education to be compatible with ID theism, or suggesting alternative "science freindly" versions of theism to allay the religious difficulties of students. The business of a science teacher, in their opinion, is to teach science - and let world views fall were they may.
Mike ignores this. "Okay, so what might be a 'scientifically approved' worldview?" he asks rhetorically, as though that was somehow the alternative suggested by Coyne et al. But the existance of "scientifically approved world views" is a conjecture designed to suite Mike's rhetoric, not drawn from the letter.
And then he launches into his discussion of Watson's eugenicism. And here is the puzzling part: what is the connection between the introduction and the body of the post? Surely had Mike wished only to criticise Watson's eugenicism, no mention need be made of the letter. And had he desired to critique Coyne et al's views on science education, Watson's views on eugenicism are entirely irrelevant.
The only connection I can see is if Mike is seeking to establish guilt be association. The post is simply a (not so) gentle hint that the views of Coyne et al must be wrong because the are associated with the evils of eugenicism.
It is a tawdry argument at best.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 6, 2005 @ 12:19 am
June 6th, 2005 at 12:47 am
Tom,
I think you are reading too much into the essay. I already addressed the letter here. The significant point of the letter was in the way these leading scientists appear to have abandoned the distinction between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism.
This essay was born because I was struck by the way these scientists brought up the issue of worldviews. Thus, I begin thinking of the worldviews they may be bringing to the table, as I would assume they hold to views they themselves do not think of as crumbling as a function of science. That then leads to a discussion of Watson (the "biggest" scientist who signed the letter) and his eugenics. I think the "wedge" issue discussed by Brave is far more important to our society that the ID "Wedge" that has many critics worried.
Anyway, there is no guilt by association; it's more like links on the internet.
But now that you mention it, I'm starting to wonder if any of the other scientists who signed the letter have commented on eugenics.
Comment by MikeGene — June 6, 2005 @ 12:47 am
June 6th, 2005 at 7:44 am
I think you yourself have read far to much into the Coyne et al letter. For example, Dawkins' position, as far as I can tell is, not that philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism are the same thing; but that the universal success of methodological naturalism warrants an inductive conclusion of philosophical naturalism. Although very hardline, I have never come across him making the leap from one to the other without explicit argument.
The argument in the letter, however, was not that methodological naturalism (inductively) entails philosophical naturalism; but that science teachers have no business teaching philosophical meta-views at all. So far from advocating a materialistic metaview, the letter writers explicitly state that "Scientists are of course free (some would say duty-bound) to fight ID outside the classroom, or to harmonize religion with science. But students who cannot handle scientific challenges to their faith should seek guidance from a theologian, not a scientist." (My emphasis.)
However, with regard to this post, the important thing is not what Coyne et al wrote, but what you thought they wrote. But even given that reading, I do not see why you escape my charge. First, the letter may be a historical source of your discussion, but it is not a logical source of your discussion. The letter has no logical bearing on your critique of Watson, nor your critique of Watson any logical bearing on the subject of the letter. Despite this, you introduction reads as indicating such a relationship. It appears to suggest that Watson's eugenicism is a type of view Coyne et al would accept being taught in the classroom; but of course, no such inference is warranted.
Your failure to indicate that the letter was only a generative antecedent of your thinking on the topic, and not logically connected might just be bad writting. But your critique of Watson's views never amounts to a reasoned critique. Rather than examine his views, you exhibit them as an example of moral tawdriness. You even hightlight the slim connection of his views with those of Hitler. But you fail, of course, to draw attention to the crucial fact that Watson does not advocate enforced sterilisation, let alone death camps, as a eugenic technique. In short, you do not show Watson's views to be morally repugnant, rather contenting yourself with inuendo ("responds with dismissive elitism"), and with association with clearly repugnant views - but views that are morally repugnant for features not shared by Watson's views.
I do not question your knowledge of your own intentions. But given your stated intentions, perhaps you should have a closer look at what you actually wrote. What I read into your post was what was there - a fact I am sure you would be clear on had a similar article been presented with IDists rather than evolutionists as the "tainted" parties.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 6, 2005 @ 7:44 am
June 6th, 2005 at 9:10 am
Tom:
I don't think it's an example of PN being "warranted" by the success of MN. I think they believe PN is mandated by the success of MN. This is why they responded to the modest suggestion from the editors of Nature as if they were being asked to engage in hypocrisy. It seems they are saying we should not be saying anything in class that might lead students away from the "natural inference" where MN leads to PN.
Are you saying a science teacher has no business making the distinction between MN and PN?
That's your impression. Had I wrote, "so what is their scientifically approved worldview," you'd have a good case. Instead, I immediately changed topics by asking, "so what might be a "scientifically approved" worldview?"
Look, you are thinking in static terms. This is a new blog. By starting as I do, I send traffic to Krauze's post from May 22 which sends traffic to my May 19 posting where new readers can see for themselves the reaction of the leading scientists. It's likely we have many readers today that we didn't have 3 weeks ago. As for not examining Watson's views, simply drawing attention to them at this time is sufficient. I send readers to Brave's article and in the future, I do intend to examine Watson's views (and those of Harris, etc.).
You are arguing against extrapolations and not the content of the essay. Watson doesn't have to be in favor of forced sterilization because his vision of eugenics makes that obsolete. What's repugnant about his views is that he thinks of things such as ugliness and stupidity as a "disease" and wants to "use genetics to make humans more capable than they are today." Who decides what is "more capable?" What's repugnant is the attempt to use people's desire to help the sick as a Trojan horse for a eugenic agenda.
Comment by MikeGene — June 6, 2005 @ 9:10 am
June 6th, 2005 at 11:08 am
Tom, you seem to be stretching to explain away what was actually meant in that letter. The Nature article that Coyne et al were responding to did not advocate teaching religion in the classroom. Thus, if they were simply trying to say that "science teachers have no business teaching philosophical meta-views at all" their response would make no sense as a reply to the Nature article. And seriously, do you think Dawkins would really sign a letter saying that teachers should keep their atheism out of class (or anywhere)?
Here is what the Nature article, which they were rebutting, said:
All scientists whose classes are faced with such concerns should familiarize themselves with some basic arguments as to why evolution, cosmology and geology are not competing with religion.
Note that they aren't advocating teaching philosophical meta-views. They are advocating explaining to students who are having problems that science is seperate from meta-views, and thus doesn't negate their own meta-view. Their argument is the classic methodological/philosophical naturalism distinction. And here is what these Coyne et al said in response:
For one thing, many scientists deem such a reconciliation impossible because faith and science are two mutually exclusive ways of looking at the world. For such scientists, Nature apparently prescribes hypocrisy.
I'm not sure how they could have more clearly defied the gloss you tried to put on their words. They are explicitly disagreeing with the Nature article's suggestion that teachers tell students that science isn't competing with religion. And note, their reasoning is *not* that science class is an inappropriate place for worldviews. Rather, it's that "faith and science are two mutually exclusive ways of looking at the world." They could not have stated this more directly. For the scientists they are representing with those words, teaching science implicitly entails teaching philosophical naturalism.
Again, their argument is not simply that "universal success of methodological naturalism warrants an inductive conclusion of philosophical naturalism". If that were the case, they could still explain a distinction between the two to troubled students without being hypocrites. Rather, for these scientists, explaining such a distinction would be "hypocrisy" because science is "mutually exclusive" with a non-naturalistic worldview (a la religion).
I feel a bit like I'm being Master Of The Obvious here. How could Coyne and company have possibly been any more brutally straightforward? Nevertheless, this kind of interpretation seems to me to come up a lot in these debates when an ID critic has a viewpoint (like the MN/PN division) which they advocate, but doesn't want to be at odds with other critics (particularly big-name scientists) who reject that view.
However, the Nature and Coyne letters were disagreeing, not agreeing, and you can't logically agree with both. Either you agree with the Nature article that science does not entail metaphysical views at odds with religion, or you agree with those scientists represented in the Coyne letter that science and religion are mutually exclusive, and that it would be hypocrisy to say otherwise. From what you said, it seems that you agree with the first view, so there's nothing wrong with just saying so, and acknowledging your disagreement with that aspect of the Coyne letter.
Comment by Deuce — June 6, 2005 @ 11:08 am
June 6th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
Deuce, you are quite obviously mistating the argument of the Coyne letter. They do not say that science and religion are mutually exclusive. Rather, they say that some (not "all", or even "most" but "some") scientists believe the two are incompatible. They also argue that "For those scientists" who believe in the mutual exclusivity of religion and science, "Nature apparently prescribes hypocrisy."
You only think you are "Master of the Obvious" because you neglect their vital quantifiers. Explicitly, while they certainly think it would be hypocrisy for William Provine to teach that science and religion are compatible (as would be required by Nature; they do not think it would be hypocrisy for Kenneth Miller to teach the same thing.
Further, the Nature editorial clearly does not merely claim that science and religion are compatible; but also suggests that science teachers should teach that compatibility. It is that advise that Coyne et al. disagree with. They may also disagree that they are compatible (I know some of them certainly do), but they do not advocate that position in the letter. Consequently, though I do accept the compatibility of science and religion, I can also agree with the major points of the letter.
It is perfectly possible for me to agree that science and religion are compatible; but that some scientists disagree. It is also possible for me to recognise that that disagreement is not a scientific disagreement, but a philosophical disagreement. Further, it is very easy to agree with Coyne et al. that requiring scientists who disagree with the proposition to teach that science and religion are compatible would be requiring of them hypocrisy.
Further, I did not say that their argument was that "universal success of methodological naturalism warrants an inductive conclusion of philosophical naturalism". I explicitly attributed that view to Dawkins, not to anyone else. Nor did I say he advocated that view in the letter, for he did not. I did so as a counterexample to Mike's claim that "these leading scientists appear to have abandoned the distinction between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism."
Finally, you write:
I am not an advocate of the MN/PN division. Such a division exists simply as a matter of logic. Nor am I an advocate of MN per se. Science does not have to be Methodologically Naturalistic to be science. Rather, it must constrain itself in hypothesis construction to those hypotheses which are emperically testable. As it happens, the only hypothesis within that limit that have passed the various tests have been naturalistic. Thus MN is a usefull heuristic in science - but it is not a fundamental principle.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 6, 2005 @ 8:38 pm
June 6th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
I do not know the opinions of most of the authors of the letter on this point. Dawkins, however, in my experience always makes mention of his grounds for infering PN from the success of naturalistic explanations in science, specifically, Ockhams Razor. Ockham's Razor is, of course,not a deductive, but an inductive principle. He also has a more general argument from the nature of explanation, but that argument makes no mention of, nor appeal to methodological naturalism at all. Consequently, "mandates" as you use it is far to strong. In Dawkins' opinion, their is a strong inductive argument from the universal success of naturalistic explanation to the conclusion of philosophical naturalism. He certainly does not believe that there is a valid deductive argument from one to the other. So for Dawkins, at least, he has not "abondoned the distinction between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism". Nor does anything in the letter give reason to believe he has done so.
I think the science teacher should restrict themselves to some comment such as:
"There are many different views about the relationship between different religions and evolution. Some theists and some atheists believe they are incompatible, while other atheists and theists disagree, believing that they are compatible. Indeed, some theists believe that their understanding of evolution enhances their understanding of their faith. If you ask me, I can provide a short reading list of various opinions on the matter for private study; or you may wish to do your own research in the library, or by consulting your minister of religion. I recommend that if you pursue this matter, you try to understand all opinions on the matter so that your own conclusion can be informed. However, these disagreements are not science. Consequently, I will not further discuss them in class."
The reading list should be short (4 to 8 books) contain representatives of all the major opinions in equal proportions, and only contain books with detailed notes and bibliographies so that they can be a spring board for further study.
I do not know whether the authors of Coyne et al would agree with this or not. I was expounding their opinion rather than my own. I also do not know whether the editor of Nature would agree with this or not. Coyne et al. certainly take him to be proposing something far more comprehensive, and which comes down clearly with the atheists and theists who believe they are compatible. I think Coyne et al are probably correct on this, but I could understand the editor of Nature thinking he had proposed no more than I have (although, in that case he has expressed himself poorly).
From context, a scientifically disapproved worldview is one that ought not to be taught or supported in the classroom. Therefore, a scientifically approved world view is one that may be taught or supported in the classroom, at least by inferrence. You place great emphasis on your preposition, but you will notice that I also used the same preposition. I did not, therefore, infer more than was suggested by your own writting.
That may give you motive for your introduction, but then I suggest you be more carefull in your phrasing. People read a post, not a blog as a whole, and as the post is written, the inference I suggest is natural.
While agreeing that some of his views are repugnant, you did not argue that but merely exhibited them. What is more, you made sure to make, and emphasise an unwarranted comparison to Hitler. Hitler's eugenic views are widely villified because of the techniques he used to impliment them, and because of their racist base. Neither is a feature of Watson's views. Therefore the comparison to Hitler was irrelevant. It does not sit well with your claim to be critiquing Watson's views for what they are. It certainly fits as part of an attempt to vilify by guilt by association.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 6, 2005 @ 9:38 pm
June 7th, 2005 at 4:12 am
Tom appears to argue that since Watson does not endorse the objectionable parts of Hitler's eugenics, the comparison to Hitler is irrelevant. I'm just a lay person here, but it seems to me that Hitler's eugenic views are vilified for reasons that go beyond the reason's that Tom cites: their basis in racism and Hitler's infamous "techniques" (i.e. sterilization, genocide, etc.). It seems to me the principle that some types of people are superior to others, and that society should work to eliminate the inferior, is out of favor with most people nowadays. The sentiment that "all men are created equal" is still widely popular, and incompatible with the eugenics of either Watson or Hitler. I therefore do not see the irrelevance.
If we are interested in the "guilt by association" fallacy, we might instead study the letter by Coyne et al. and its reference to "'intelligent design' creationism." Why not simply "intelligent design," a term the proponents actually use?
Comment by ryan — June 7, 2005 @ 4:12 am
June 7th, 2005 at 5:10 am
Ryan, Hitler is infamous for his killing of 14 million people in concentration camps as part of his eugenics program. Now however objectionable you may find a "eugenics program" based entirely on voluntary procedures as advocated by Watson, it is not comparable. If you do not see the irrelevance that would only indicated that you do not see the moral difference between mass genocide and voluntary medical procedures (even if unethical). I suspect, of course, that you are not that morally blind. But in that case you really need to rethink the appropriateness of the comparison Mike wished to make.
As to the Coyne letter, "Intelligent Design Creationism" is a descriptively accurate label of the ID movement. It is descriptively accurate using the definition of "creationism" used by Phillip Johnson in his book, "Darwin on Trial"; a book on the basis of which he is called the father of ID. It is descriptively accurate on the basis of the definition of creationism used in the ID movements first (?) conference, the Mere Creation conference, and in the book of the same name. It is descriptively accurate (using Johnson's definition) of all the major proponents of ID, whether they are young earth creationists like Nelson, or old earth creationists like Behe. And finally, it is sociologically accurate, in that the aims - the stated aims - of the major ID organisations is to make the culture more amenable to theism by "refuting Darwinism". That is, the major aim of ID organisations is a broad theistic apologetic, and generally a specific Christian apologetic - just as was the case with previous creationist movements. I am sorry it offends you that Coyne et al call a spade a spade.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 7, 2005 @ 5:10 am
June 7th, 2005 at 8:25 am
Am I offended? Hmm…I don't see anything in my post to indicate so. I simply asked a question.
Do you suggest, then, that there is no intended rhetorical effect in using the term "intelligent design creationism" as opposed to just "intelligent design" Much like the term "evolution," which can merely mean change over time but can also refer specifically to neo-Darwinian theory, the term "creationism" can be used in a variety of different ways, a fact of which I'm sure you are aware. ID is a type of creationism in the philosophical sense that Johnson used the term, of course. However, "creationism" in common usage refers to young-earth biblical literalism, and critics obviously use the term "Intelligent Design creationism," a term IDist never use, to associate the two.
Reading Mike's article, I don't see where Mike suggests that Watson's vision of a eugenics program would be comparable to Hitler's. Mike quotes Brave's article, which describes Watson's reaction to inevitable comparisons to Nazism. Mike then writes: "That darn Hitler really threw a kink into the eugenic agenda! Come now people, at least when it came to eugenics, Hitler got that part right!" Is this where Mike suggests that Watson's eugenics program would be comparable to Hitler's? I think you're reading a lot into what Mike actually writes.
You write that Watson envisions voluntary medical procedures. I'm a layman and have not read Watson's book, but consider this quote from Mike's article:
Watson announce[d] that he'd like to genetically treat the 10 percent of children whom he considers "stupid" and prevent the birth of ugly girls. "If you really are stupid, I would call that a disease," Watson says. Furthermore, "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."
"If WE MADE all girls pretty" That doesn't sound like a voluntary procedure to me. It sounds Brave-New-World-ish. In what other ways do you suppose Watson would like to engineer future generations?
Comment by ryan — June 7, 2005 @ 8:25 am
June 7th, 2005 at 8:58 am
You also missed my own qualifiers, such as "For the scientists they are representing with those words". However, you've changed the subject away from the point I made, so I'll bring it back: The letter was not at all saying "that science teachers have no business teaching philosophical meta-views at all" as you originally interpreted it to be saying. In fact, it explicitly states as an objection to that that "some scientists" see themselves as implicitly teaching a meta-view that is "mutually exclusive" with religion, and that it would therefore be hypocrisy for them to make a distinction between the science they teach and the meta-view of philosophical naturalism. And while the letter assigns this sentiment to "some scientists" rather than stating it directly, it certainly doesn't attempt to rebut the notion. The argument you said was there simply isn't, and its opposite obviously is.
Now, as to the lesser question of which of those signatories actually agree with the sentiment, let's do a little educated speculation. First, keep in mind that the Nature article wasn't saying that science teachers should be forced to explain that science and religion aren't in contradiction, or anything like that. It merely made the modest suggestion that it would be a good idea for religious scientists to tell students who have issues how they reconcile science and faith, and for secular scientists to know a few arguments about the MN/PN distinction when students have problems. So one thing we can know for sure is that each of the signatories of the response was offended just by this very suggestion in some way, else they wouldn't be sending an angry letter rebutting it. And it wasn't the idea of being forced themselves to teach the MN/PN distinction that bothered them, since nobody was suggesting that anyway, but rather the idea of any science teacher telling students with problems that faith and science aren't at odds. So, the rhetorical question is, why would anybody be so offended at the mere suggestion of teachers telling their students this, such that they would write an angry letter to Nature, unless they themselves disagreed with it? The reason can't be "that science teachers have no business teaching philosophical meta-views at all," because they defend teachers who see themselves as teaching a meta-view that is "mutually exclusive" with religion. Also, the rest of the letter's points could have been made without this part, so why is it there?
You brought up Provine, who is known for specifically telling his freshman students at the beginning of the course that he will destroy any belief they have in God, and then keeping track of their "progress". I think Dawkins, one of the signatories, is known to take shots at religion in class as well. If the responders to Nature had wanted to denounce the teaching of meta-views at all, they could have, but they didn't.
Btw, I'm not suggesting that those scientists should, as they put it, "be hypocrites.". I just think it's very revealing that they were so offended by the idea of teachers telling their students that there is an MN/PN distinction, or that science and faith aren't in conflict.
Comment by Deuce — June 7, 2005 @ 8:58 am
June 7th, 2005 at 9:02 am
I think it's worth pointing out that when Mike said that, he was essentially just repeating what Watson himself had said. He was just being sarcastic about it.
Comment by Deuce — June 7, 2005 @ 9:02 am
June 7th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
Is it fair to say MikeGene and Ralph Brave favor cystic fibrosis? Why not?
Is there anything in the diatribe against eugenics that leaves room for a cure for cystic fibrosis?
It's not just the misapplication of the broadbrush where a detail brush is required: Your use of only black and white in a world of tones and tints, in full color, is unbecoming.
Heck, we know now (from genetics, an evolutionary science you appear to disdain) that even dogs see some colors. Philosophy of a dog wouldn't be so black and white as this piece.
If you don't favor cystic fibrosis, please indicate where any research against it fits into your anti-eugenics world-view.
Comment by edarrell — June 7, 2005 @ 3:30 pm
June 8th, 2005 at 5:43 am
Ryan, of course their is a rhetorical intent in calling ID proponents "Intelligent Design Creationists". By using that name, attention is focussed on the religious motivation and apologetic intentions of the ID movement. The question is not whether or not there is a rhetorical purpose, but whether the phrase is descriptively accurate. It is! a point you have not cared to challenge. It is hardly a blemish on ID critics that they can gain rhetorical advantage by telling the truth.
Now, are you suggesting there is no rhetorical intent in ID advocates insisting they are not creationists when, by the definition of their premier theorist on the topic, they are?
Had you read Brave's article, you would have read that Watson said:
As evidently he does not wish to advance his genetic program by laws and regulation, the only way remaining for him to use germline engineering is if people voluntarilly agree to the procedure. To define a program of eugenics based entirely on voluntary procedures as "Brave-New-Worldish" is, I think, Orwellian. Watson appears to advocate that anyone who wishes to ensure that all their descendants who inherit a particular gene from them should be more intelligent than they otherwise would be, given that we have the available technology.
Watson may wish to treat the 10% of the population who "are stupid", but doing so may involve nothing more than subsidised voluntary treatments. Despite fist Brave's and then Mike's best efforts to cast Watson as an irresponsible monster, they have given us no reason to doubt that Watson goes at any stage beyond strict voluntarism.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 8, 2005 @ 5:43 am
June 8th, 2005 at 6:26 am
Deuce:
I think it's worth pointing out that when Mike said that, he was essentially just repeating what Watson himself had said. He was just being sarcastic about it.
YEAH! Just being sarcastic. But sarcasm is defined as
http://www.urbandictionary.com...
So, either Mike was using sarcasm simply to ridicule; or he intended to cast doubt on Watson's claim. But Watson's claim was simply that, just because Hitler was evil, and favoured eugenics; it does not follow that eugenics itself must be evil. If Mike does not disagree with that claim of Watson's he had no reason to use sarcasm except simple ridicule. Or, if he did not intend to ridicule for the sake of ridicule, then he intended to indicate that Watson's eugenicism cannot be extricated from the moral condemnation that we direct at Hitler's eugenics program, involving as it did, racism, forced marriages, forced sterilisations, and mass murder.
Further, Mike did not simply direct sarcasm at Watson's comments, he highlighted them. Watson disassociating his views from Hitler is a "most illuminating quote", apparently, and most illuminating we are informed by heavy sarcasm, because no such disassocation can be made.
Finally, I consider this a contemptible defence of Mike's comments. If it had not failed your notice, all of Mike's comments on Watson are in the form of sarcasm, snide remarks and innuendo. If I am not to understand the message so given in the standard way, then Mike has said nothing at all. If you really wish to defend Mike's comments because they were just sarcasm, and because he never says anything directly, then the critic is forced into silence by the simple fact that Mike does not say anything directly. By using this defence, you are suggesting that that is a legitimate tactic by Mike - that his views are best expressed by maintaining plaussible deniability in the face of potential criticism.
I, at least, will credit Mike with having intended the message that he conveyed; that his choice of sarcasm was stylistic rather than an evasion of direct commentary, and of responsibility for what he wanted to imply.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 8, 2005 @ 6:26 am
June 8th, 2005 at 9:46 am
Mike has always excelled at taking almost any mundane topic and spinning it into a rant - usually against Dawkins, but Watson seems to be his new whipping boy.
While Watson isn't the spokesman I would choose (the pretty girl comment should be obviously taken as tongue-in-cheek to even the most obtuse observer), the only thing I see as "un-ethical," is the fact they would be messing with, what some see as "god's" programming.
I do see some problems - like the technology only being available to the rich, but if it was "open source," I wouldn't oppose it.
Comment by Doug McGee — June 8, 2005 @ 9:46 am
June 8th, 2005 at 10:19 am
Remember that their letter was a reply to an editorial in Nature. So let's go back to that editorial:
I read the points I have emphasized as the distinction between PN and MN. Dawkins rejects this advice, as he does indeed think science is competing with religion. As I pointed out in my original blog, Dawkins believes "the belief that religion and science occupy separate magisteria is dishonest." The bottom line is that Coyne et al. interpreted the Nature editorial to mean that many scientists should be hypocrites. Why? Because many scientists do not think you can reconcile faith and science. If you cannot possibly reconcile religious faith and science, then you reject the distinction between MN and PN, which is one way to reconcile them.
Let's jump to the Watson/Hitler issue.
Indeed. In time, I can turn to a more systematic exploration of Watson's worldview, but for now, it's simply worth pointing out that this leading scientist has a worldview that labels things such as stupidity and ugliness as "diseases."
That's your opinion. The views of Watson and Hitler do not need to be identical for them to be comparable. Hitler and Watson are two eugenicists. Thus, they are comparable. Watson may disagree with the techniques used by Hitler, but they both dip heavily from the well of eugenics. Hitler was a racist and Watson is a sexist. And they both frown on the "stupid." In other words, Watson appears to be saying, "Hitler basically had the right idea, he just went about it all wrong."
So what is Watson's new and improved method of eugenics? You suggest the following:
How would you define this 10% of the population who "are stupid?" We can look to the history of science and how scientists set up "stupidity" scales, blaming "stupidity" on genetics.
Then who is going to subsidize these voluntary treatments? How much is that going to cost?
Comment by MikeGene — June 8, 2005 @ 10:19 am
June 8th, 2005 at 10:38 am
Ed:
And there it is! Get used to this, people, as you will see this accusation much more in the future. Those who oppose eugenics will be accused of favoring diseases. This is their wedge strategy in action.
Comment by MikeGene — June 8, 2005 @ 10:38 am
June 9th, 2005 at 5:40 am
The distinction between MN and PN is simply an aid to clear thinking. You have a philosophical belief: "There are not supernatural beings or properties." There is also a maxim on how to do science: "Invoke no supernatural beings or properties." We call the belief "Philosophical Naturalism", and the maxim "Methodological Naturalism". Making the distinction is simply a matter of clear thought, or distinguishing between beliefs and principles of action.
Having made the distinction, you may come to a number of different, further opinions. You may believe that MN is a fundamental principle of science; or like I do, that it is not a fundamental principle, but a usefull heuristic; or, like Plantinga that it is a flawed heuristic that has crippled science, or even with Johnson that it is a flawed heuristic that not only cripples science, but also that it prevents you from seeing that fact. You may also believe that the apparent success entails PN (Johnson, Provine); that it provides PN with strong inductive warrant (Dawkins); or that it provides it with weak inductive warrant (Me); or even that it provides it with no inductive warrant at all (Kenneth Miller). Only the latter two opininions are consistent with the reconciliation of science and religion; EVEN THOUGH ALL OF THEM ACCEPT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN MN AND PN. (Strictly, the former two are consistent with a reconciliation of sience and religion, so long as the science strictly rejects MN.)
Now there are two points here. This first is, there is no reason to go on about accepting or rejecting the distinction between MN and PN. That is a mere conceptual distinction, and while conceptual distinctions can aid clear thought, they cannot by themselves be the basis of any positive view. I think that by "rejecting MN and PN" you really mean "rejecting the view that the sucess of MN does not entail PN".
The second and more important point is that everyone of these views is not a scientific view, but a view about science. They are philosophical opinions rather than scientific; and are supported by philosophical argument rather than scientific evidence.
Now, turning to the Nature editorial. What it advised ALL scientists to do was to teach just one of the views above, ie, that MN has no bearing on PN. (Strictly, this is not correct, in that the editorial did not mention MN and PN at all, and there are other ways of reconciling religion and science that do not use those concepts; but that is how you have chosen to phrase the debate.) Now without doubt, it would be unconstitutional in the US for a science teacher to say that science proves (or disproves) the existence of God. And there is little doubt that that is not what Nature is advising those scientists who beleive these things to teach. Nature is not recommending that Behe (for example) teach his students that science proves the existence of God; nor that Provine teach his students that science proves there is no God. But that being the case, Nature is recommending that all scientists, all, including Provine (amongst others) teach that science and religion are fully consistent, and that the success of natural science does not tend to refute religion. And that is to recommend that those scientists behave hypocritically.
There is no question that the letter writters disagree with this advice. And they disagree, at least in part, because if followed, it would require many scientists to behave hypocritically - including those few scientists who reject MN and think there ought to be a theistic science. However, the question is not whether or not they disagree with the advice, but what remedy do they propose.
This is summed up in two sentences:
"The real business of science teachers is to teach science, not to help students shore up worldviews that crumble when they learn science."
and
"But students who cannot handle scientific challenges to their faith should seek guidance from a theologian, not a scientist."
To summarise, they think in the classroom science, and nothing else should be taught; and that students for whom that creates religious difficulties should seek help from theologians, not scientists. They nowhere suggest that scientists should teach non-scientific views that oppose religion.
Deuce suggests that, "The reason can't be "that science teachers have no business teaching philosophical meta-views at all," because they defend teachers who see themselves as teaching a meta-view that is "mutually exclusive" with religion." This shows how little Deuce understands the view he opposes. Certainly some scientists believe that science entails, or strongly supports, atheism. For that very reason, they have no reason to teach anything but science in the classroom. And science itself is not a meta view; it is only the thing science teachers contract to teach. Consequently, Coyne et al., even if they all think that science and religion are in some way incompatible (which is not certain) can with perfect honesty suggest that no meta views be taught in science class. They can merely relly on the natural intelligence of their students to draw the "right" conclusions.
(Alternatively, they can try the Provine gambit. Get some sucker creationist to give "guest lectures" and say the things they may not legally say, ie, that if evolution is true, Christianity is false. They then need only carefully lay out the evidence for evolution taking care to devestate the creationists case against evolution. This gambit, I am sure, will produce a high out put of atheists.)
I apologise for the length of this post. I am now exiting this aspect of the debate. I do not see further point in arguing against people who insist the letter writters did not prescribe what they wrote in black and white, and must really have prescribed something else more comforting to that persons prejudices.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 9, 2005 @ 5:40 am
June 9th, 2005 at 6:30 am
Thankyou, Mike, for having the integrity to admit you were trying to establish an association between Watson and Hitler's views.
Now, do you think it is appropriate to mention of anyone who favours good roads that Hitler also favoured good roads? Or of anyone who favours low unemployment that that also was a goal of Hitler? Or of anyone who favours the death penalty that Hitler also approved of the death penalty?
The fact of the matter is that Hitler was responsible for mass murder on an unheard of scale; for tyranny and for ruinous war. For this reason his name is a byword for evil. It is impossible to forget the nature of his evil when you hear his name.
Now, whatever may be the moral status of Watson's views, they are not as evil as Hitler was; nor anywhere close. Therefore, comparing their views is inappropriate and distasteful. It is inappropriate because with Hitler on your mind, there is no possibility of moral nuance. It is like trying to hear if a tenor is off tune while you have a fog horn blasting in one ear. It is distastefull because it must, inevitably be either a thoughtless or (worse still) a deliberate attempt to capitalise on Hitler's moral infamy in order to vilify opposing views.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 9, 2005 @ 6:30 am
June 9th, 2005 at 6:41 am
Hi Tom,
I don't have much time (spent too much of it with the PlayStation), so let me just say that I think you and Mike are in agreement about PM and MN, although you use the terms differently. I think that when Mike's talking about not distinguishing between PM and MN, he's talking about the same as you are, when you're talking about inferring PM from the success of MN.
Mike's point is that when people are criticising Johnson for his attitude towards PM and MN, they're forgetting that many scientists, like Dawkins and Provine, have the same attitude, yet don't seem to catch flak for it.
Comment by Krauze — June 9, 2005 @ 6:41 am
June 9th, 2005 at 8:25 am
Krauze,
I suspect that you may be right about terminology.
You and Mike are also correct that Provine (but not about Dawkins) having the same attitude as Johnson. Dawkins view has similarities, but is much more nuanced.
The reason Johnson (and not Provine) catches flack is two fold. First, Provine does not attack science, while Johnson does. You may disagree with the later point, but it is correct on two grounds. First his books on the subject completely misrepresent the state of evidence in order to attack a theory he does not like. Secondly, he has started a deliberate political campaign to get religion (as the scientists see it) taught as science.
You may think this is unfair, but you had better check out the churches. In the pews, it is Dawkins and Provine who catch the flack, not Johnson. That is, of course, because Dawkins and Provine are seen as attacking Christianity, while Johnson is not.
And finally, I attack Johnson because he absolutely never defends his thesis by philosophical argument. The closest he comes is to assert that people like Provine agree with him, so he must be right. Dawkins I respect because he, at least, thinks it necessary to use an argument to make his case. (I think his argument is wrong, but that is a different matter.) Provine, on the other hand, I don't have the time of day for. He is no better than, and no worse than, Johnson in my opinion.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 9, 2005 @ 8:25 am
June 9th, 2005 at 8:40 am
Tom, I drew attention to the "Intelligent Design creationism" label, suggesting that it could provide fodder for discussion of the "guilt by association" fallacy. Clearly, critics use the label to associate ID with the young-Earth biblical literalism, widely known as "creationism," that courts have ruled should not be taught in public schools. The label is only descriptively accurate if the term "creationism" is meant in a broad philosophical sense, not the sense in which the term has been used in the public arena. Critics use the equivocal nature of the term "creationism" to score rhetorical points, and I would hardly describe this as telling the truth.
As to your question: when IDists insist they are not creationists, they employ the term "creationist" as the public generally understands it. They assert that they do not adhere to a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, a 10,000-year-old Earth, etc. I don't see any rhetorical intent here.
I did not define "a program of eugenics based entirely on voluntary procedures" as Brave-New-Worldish. I referred to Watson's quote - "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great." - as Brave-New-Worldish, which it is. Obviously, we could not make all girls pretty or genetically treat the "stupidest" 10 percent of children if we were to implement an entirely voluntary eugenics program. Would Watson actually wish to require such procedures? I don't know. If I become sufficiently interested in his views, I'll read a book of his.
Comment by ryan — June 9, 2005 @ 8:40 am
June 9th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
edarrell asks if Mike is in favor of CF, because he is not in favor of eugenics. This is sick and twisted. All that medical science can do for CF at this point is offer ineffective short-term treatments, lung/organ transplants, abortion and/or sterilization. It can't cure the condition, and it can't accurately predict who'll be born with it. I would ask if edarrell knows anyone with CF, and whether he would tell us that anyone with CF "should never have been born." And how, exactly, he'd go about ensuring that no such humans are born.
I won't say I don't sympathize with that view. I know a couple who had two sons with CF before they got 'fixed' so they wouldn't have more. In a perfect world, they'd have availed themselves of genetic screening before having children. But they aren't wealthy people, and such testing isn't standard procedure. Just folks, who just had children because that's what folks do when they fall in love and get married and start a life together.
Their family has suffered through outrageous, heartbreaking, bank-breaking trials and tribulations, that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. The younger brother - Matthew - died last Christmas, after saying 'no' to an offer of yet another transplant from the Duke doctors who used him for so many experiments over the years because that was the only medical care they could get. He'd had enough, and died peacefully at home at the ripe old age of 15.
It broke all our hearts, but it was his choice and we respected that same as if he'd been 85 instead of 15. Matthew taught us that respect, and he taught us a lot about life, and love, and struggle, and meaning too. More than I ever learned from my great-uncle who died when he was 104. I do not believe that my young friend, his family, or any of us who knew and loved him would say with conviction that he "should never have been born." Nor have I ever heard from Matthew himself that he had anything but great love for life, and thankfulness that he was gifted with life in time.
My question for edarrell, since he brought it up, is whether pre-pregnancy genetic testing, early pregnancy genetic testing of the fetus, and full prenatal care should be required by law. And if so, whether sterilization (for those who flunk the pre-childbearing test) and abortion of any fetus found to be genetically 'compromised' should then be mandatory. Last but not least, how would edarrell implement such requirements in a nation that doesn't offer universal health care, and which does not offer even basic prenatal care for more than half of pregnant women or any pediatric care for tens of millions of children. Would he favor mandatory infanticide/euthanasia upon diagnosis?
And would mandatory euthanasia be justified under the "prevention of suffering" or the "shouldn't have been born" header?
It seems pointless to me to dream of eugenics in a nation that doesn't care about the health or wellbeiing of way more than half the citizens already alive and struggling to survive. Is this just a way of instituting the kind of prejudice that will inevitably be promoted against the elusive targets of a eugenics program that cannot be made into actual policy? Watson doesn't like ugly women, edarrell doesn't like children with CF, I'm sure we can find those who dislike athsmatics, Down's children, anyone with a family history of genetic disease, anyone with a family history of cancer (or any other productivity-robbing condition), the clumsy, the accident-prone, short people, fat people, red [black, yellow, brown] people, people with "bad hair," and pigeon-toed persons of any variety.
We already know how this works, as we've seen it before. First public opinion must be shaped to view "lesser" humans with disdain. This is usually accomplished by concurrent promotion of the superiority complexes of the healthy and white (who must back eugenics policies or they don't get anywhere). Then gub'ment policy steps in to offer the elites a ready escape from their discomfort at sharing the world with "lesser" humans - it promises to "cure" the problem by first segregating the targets from polite company, then by quietly doing away with them once they are thankfully outside the public's view and concern.
Human nature hasn't significantly changed in all the time humans have been present on this planet. What do the eugenicists here believe is different now to suggest eugenics is a viable political/medical/scientific policy?
Comment by Joy — June 9, 2005 @ 4:09 pm
June 9th, 2005 at 4:24 pm
Tom:
This is interesting. Tom is the first ID critic I have encountered who thinks Johnson does indeed distinguish between MN and PN.
Yes, and that one view just happened to be the view of Eugenie Scott and a view that is extremely common among the critics of ID that I have encountered. In fact, I chose to "phrase the debate" this way because of this extensive experience. It's quite an eye-opener to watch Coyne et al. attack an argument that is a favorite among their fellow critics of ID.
You pointed to the "remedy" they suggested. Well, the remedy they suggest is the status quo. The whole thrust of the editorial was to suggest that the status quo has been helpful in bringing about the rising popularity of ID on college campuses. I'd go further and point out that many of the "many scientists" who believe faith and science cannot be reconciled has also played a role in this rising popularity. In fact, that also happens to be the view of Ken Miller and Michael Ruse.
It would be interesting if we could use science to better flesh out the claims of Coyne et al. and determine how many is many. Is there is reason no one is doing this science?
Comment by MikeGene — June 9, 2005 @ 4:24 pm
June 9th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
Just pointing out what exists "“ both are eugenicists. Of course, there have been many expressions of eugenics. Back in pre-Nazi days, scientists (and their textbooks) used to distinguish between positive eugenics and negative eugenics. The Nazi Party took some of that science to heart.
No, but Hitler's ideology was not defined by his opinions of roads and employment. Yet it was deeply influenced by eugenics. Since eugenics played such a crucial role in Nazi ideology, it makes no sense to ignore one possible expression of eugenics, especially since the expression happened so recently and resulted in such evil.
There have been many tyrants and ruinous wars. Hitler and the Nazis stand out because of the death camps and everything related to it. And one thing intimately related to it was eugenics.
I never said this. When Watson says, ""Here we must not fall into the absurd trap of being against everything Hitler was for," he is not talking about roads, unemployment, or the death penalty. He is trying to extract eugenics from the hands of the Nazis. I mock this as someone who is saying that at least Hitler got the eugenics part right.
I consider it inappropriate and distasteful to argue for eugenics without making a powerful ,positive case as to why you new view of eugenics could never possibly evolve into something like Nazi ideology. Watson needs to do more than pooh-pooh the comparison.
Besides, I gave you the chance to talk about eugenics without the shadow of Hitler the eugenicist. I asked you a couple of questions about Watson's improved version of eugenics. You didn't answer.
Comment by MikeGene — June 9, 2005 @ 4:42 pm
June 10th, 2005 at 12:30 am
Joy said:
Yes, I know several people with CF. The current potential for treatment and cure relies on evolution-based theory, by the way, stuff that intelligent design advocates testify is false.
It's not a question of these people "never being born." It's a question of figuring out how to fix the genetic cause of the disease. That's properly in the realm of "eugenics," if you choose to call it that. The rest of us call it merciful medicine.
ID offers not a whit of hope for a cure, though evolution does.
Joy illustrates the inherent evil of ID precisely: When we come to a problem that evolution can solve, we should instead throw up our hands and claim the kids can only be aborted? 'Better to invoke the sprites of intelligent design than to use that evil evolution to find a cure.'
Bad politics, stupid science, and unChristian, it seems to me. I think Jesus would have been on the side of treatment and cure.
Hitler's views, by the way, were not based in genetics. He held to a Biblical view of heritage, that heritage was in the blood (which is why Hitler refused to allow life-saving blood banks to be established — this sad history is recounted in Ashley Montagu's book, Human Genetics.). So it's nothing but calumny to equate Watson with Hitler.
Bad politics, stupid science, unChristian, and calumnous to boot. Is there such a thing as a quadrafecta?
Comment by edarrell — June 10, 2005 @ 12:30 am
June 10th, 2005 at 12:37 am
Ed:
.
You should 1) define this "evolution-based theory" and 2) demonstrate why it is essential to developing treatment and/or cure.
Comment by MikeGene — June 10, 2005 @ 12:37 am
June 10th, 2005 at 12:51 am
No one is equating Hitler with Watson.
As for the rest, consider this:
Paul DB, Spencer HG. 1995. The hidden science of eugenics. Nature. 374:302-4.
Why did more than half of Germany's biologists join the Nazi party (the highest membership rate of any professional group)?
Comment by MikeGene — June 10, 2005 @ 12:51 am
June 10th, 2005 at 10:42 am
I'll have to second Mike's 2-point suggestion, as I am at a loss to think of how evolutionary theory offers a "cure" for CF. My hope for the future sufferers of this awful condition lies in gene therapy, which doesn't rely on either 'MET' or neo-darwinism far as I can tell. Soon as they get a vector that works but isn't a 'jumper', the possibilities are good for a cure.
That would be "intelligent design," not "evolution." And, because the Weismann barrier has been demonstrated permeable to gene therapy's insertions, it could offer a generational cure too. But the only thing inherent to neo-darwinism that has ever played a role in such research was that barrier that turned out to be permeable - NOT a prediction of the theory.
Medicine generally ignores neo-darwinian theory because it doesn't contribute anything of value to research. And defeating the NS portion of that theory is what "merciful medicine" is all about, n'est ce pas? It's not what eugenics is all about.
You are talking about eugenics, which is a human-designed socio-political policy that is entirely unworkable in any nation that doesn't even offer basic health care to its citizens. And your sleight-of-mind trick of calling it "evolution" instead of "eugenics" is the very same trick employed by eugenicists from the time of Darwin's cousin Galton through Hitler all the way to North Carolina in the 1980s. "Evolution" is just the handy excuse.
Comment by Joy — June 10, 2005 @ 10:42 am
June 12th, 2005 at 5:56 pm
Hitler's eugenics was involuntary, involved forced marriages, forced sterilizations, and mass killings.
Watson's eugenics is voluntary, makes no proposals about marriages, does not restrict anyones right to have children, and does not involve killing anyone.
Giving that Watson's program does not involve a single one of the features that made Hitler's programe clearly morally objectionable; and in particular most definitely does not involve that feature which made Hitler a byword for evil.
Given that Watson's program does not contain a single one of the features which make Hitler's program obviously morally objectionable, it is not incumbent on him in anyway to show that his program does not have the moral features of Hitler's program. Rather, it is incumbent on the critic to show that eugenics itself, the desire that the human race in future should be healthier, smarter, and yes (how shallow) better looking is somehow inherently morally evil. Alternatively, the critic needs to show that the methods Watson does actually advocate are morally questionable, and why.
My feeling is that you are unable to do that - so you seek to tar Watson's views with a convenient brush. If you think that is unfair, please demonstrate a plausible path whereby Watson's views could lead to death camps from within a western democracy. That is the test of the legitimacy of the comparison from your perspective, for if no such plausible path exists, it is not incumbent on Watson to disassociate himself from it.
Absent such a path (and no such path exists), then Watson was right to dismiss associations of his views with Hitler - and you were, not just wrong, but morally repugnant to ridicule that dismissal.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 12, 2005 @ 5:56 pm
June 13th, 2005 at 12:29 am
Tom,
I never said Watson's views "have the moral features of Hitler's program" or would "lead to death camps." I said I want to see powerful ,positive case as to why this new view of eugenics could never possibly evolve into something like Nazi ideology.
If you are going to go the voluntary eugenic route, you have to create a political and sociological climate that will encourage the eugenic choice. Once you get a lot of people excited about eugenics, and begin thinking of diseased people as people who should not exist, and someone's definition of the "stupid" as a disease, what's to keep people from getting a little impatient with those who don't opt for the eugenic choice?
Is Watson's solution even workable? If it is not (and there is no reason to think it is), all we end up doing is creating a desire for eugenics and a failed was to express it. Sorry, it's not a question of eugenics being "inherently morally evil." It's a question of trust. And I do not trust those in power to tinker with the human germline, regardless of their noble intentions. They already screwed up bigtime and it's their burden to provide powerful arguments as to why they wouldn't do so again.
Look, I really liked GATTACA.
Comment by MikeGene — June 13, 2005 @ 12:29 am
June 13th, 2005 at 2:14 am
So Mike, your official position is that Watson's views do not have the moral features of Hitlers views; and you have no reason to believe Watson's views will lead to a situation were views like Hitler's are implemented; but that it is absurd and worthy of scorn for Watson to reject any attempt to mention Hitler in order to poison the well when discussing his views.
And you find nothing absurd or distastefull about that?
Comment by tom_kbel — June 13, 2005 @ 2:14 am
June 13th, 2005 at 7:55 am
As I said, Watson wants to re-awaken and embolden the eugenic agenda. It's not good enough for him to dismiss comparisons to the Nazis, history's most famous eugenicists. He needs to explain why a society that resurrects eugenics on all fronts (needed to make the "voluntary" scheme workable) is not a society that is also front-loaded to embark on a path similar to the Nazis (Nazi does not have to mean "˜death camps'; remember, the Nazis were also famous for their use of "mercy killing").
It looks to many of us that Watson is saying, "Hitler had the right idea, he just went about it all wrong."
When the eugenics movement began here in America, the educated people who thought it up never dreamed they had put us on the pathway to the death camps. They were playing with fire and millions of others got burnt. Now, I don't think "death camps" are likely to occur as a result of the new eugenics, but you don't need death camps to be evil. Joy speaks of a family who had a child with CF and all the pain they suffered. I see the eugenics crowd as wanting to add more pain to the situation "“ let's have society and politicians scorn the parents and their child.
Look Tom, you never answered my questions and they are quite relevant to this discussion. You said,
How would you define this 10% of the population who "are stupid?"
Then who is going to subsidize these voluntary treatments? How much is that going to cost?
That you can't answer the questions suggests this voluntary scheme is poorly thought out.
Comment by MikeGene — June 13, 2005 @ 7:55 am
June 13th, 2005 at 9:19 am
No I did not. I am not a defender of eugenics. I hold germline genetic engineering in deep suspicion, not because it is inherently evil; but because it is too susceptible to casual catastrophes (in a similar maner to thalidomide), and also because it may have overwhelming and potentially catastrophic impacts on our social structures (in a similar manner to the introduction of cars, and the internet). This is not a reason for the blanket rejection of germline genetic engineering; but it is a reason for great caution, so I see no reason to push it.
Nor am I familiar enough with Watson's views to attempt to give them a more detailed exposition.
What I am sure of is that Henry Ford was not evil in the manner that Hitler was evil, nor Bill Gates. Neither were the distributors of thalidomide with insufficient testing evil in the manner that Hitler was evil. Comparing them with Hitler would be morally obnoxious. Even given Christian views about the sanctity of life, voluntary germline genetic engineering (which is what Watson is proposing) is not evil in the manner or scale of Hitler's evil.
Given the unspeakably obnoxious nature of the comparison you want people to keep in mind when thinking of Watson's views, it is incumbent on you to show that such a comparison is warranted. That, however, is not an onus you will accept. You keep on insisting that the mere possibility - not plausibility, but possibility - that introducing voluntary germ line genetic engineering (and never forget that that is what Watson proposes, no matter what name he calls it by) means that Watson must show that introducing voluntary germline genetic engineering won't start us on a march to death camps - or else wear such comparisons as entirely appropriate.
That is certainly not a standard you would wear for yourself, or for anyone whose views you are sympathetic with.
It is certainly not a standard I will wear for anyone, including Watson, even though I am unsympathetic to his views (though not explicitly hostile).
This will be my last post on this topic. Anyone whose mind might have been changed has certainly changed it by now, one way or the other.
Then what do you think is likely, and why do you think it sufficiently evil to warrant comparison with Nazi-ism? Because if you don't think it is morally comparable, your ridiculing of Watson's dismissal of any comparison with Hitler represents an obnoxious rhetorical strategy taken in prefference to rational debate.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 13, 2005 @ 9:19 am
June 14th, 2005 at 11:41 pm
Tom complains about the "unspeakably obnoxious nature" of the comparison between Watson's views and Nazi views. Yet this comparison is neither unspeakable nor obnoxious to a large number of people from various parts of the political spectrum. As Brave noted:
The connection is inevitable because the connection is eugenics. Many people don't want to risk repeating the past by forgetting the past. And since eugenics played such a crucial role in formulating Nazi ideology and policy, you don't simply take that off the table when trying to re-introduce a eugenic agenda back into the public awareness.
Tom complains of an "obnoxious rhetorical strategy taken in preference to rational debate." But consider what Watson said:
This is an "obnoxious rhetorical strategy" taken in preference to rational debate. If Watson, or any other eugenicist, truly wants to put their position in the context of "rational debate," they need to do the following:
1. Demonstrate a true understanding of the history of eugenics. If we used Tom's logic, it would be unspeakably obnoxious to compare the American eugenics movement with the German eugenics movement because the former never implemented euthanasia and death camps as part of their solution. But scholars do make the comparison because they were connected in a historical sense. The former helps us understand the latter.
2. After demonstrating an understanding of eugenics, and how it led to forced sterilizations, racist immigration and marriage laws, the use of euthanasia to serve eugenics, and ultimately death camps, Watson (or the eugenicist) needs to lay out his solution and argue why it would not evolve into another expression of evil. You don't have to be a Nazi to be wrong. But the Nazi example teaches us just how wrong eugenics can naturally become.
As I said above, all Watson is offering is a rekindling of the eugenic goal and a doomed method of achieving it. No voluntary scheme is ever going to make the human family more capable. The only thing it could hope to achieve (depending on the science and technology) is a purchased class of more "capable" humans. The old eugenics tried to blame class distinctions on genetics. The new eugenics promises to make class distinctions with genetics.
The only way out of the "˜genetic enhancement for the rich only' scheme is to involve the government. The only way to get everyone on board voluntarily is to create a socio-political environment that is strongly pro-eugenics. Well, where might that take us all?
Now while Watson himself is opposed to using methods of coercion to realize the eugenic utopia, but what is to keep his intellectual descendents from agreeing to this restriction? In an age where things like evolutionary psychology work to create the impression that behavior is largely genetic, where health care costs continue to skyrocket (making the "diseased" more of a burden), where more laws, taxes, and business policies are implemented to micromanage "health-related" decisions, where "mercy killing" is becoming more accepted, where leading bioethicists want society to start debating infanticide, and where more people are complaining about immigration, the eugenic spirit is just the focal point to cohere all these trends into something Watson may not foresee.
The eugenicist position is rooted in sentiment "“ it's little more than, as Tom says, "a desire that the human race in future should be healthier, smarter, and yes (how shallow) better looking." That desire, coupled to genetics, has a track record that takes us down the wrong road. Modern day eugenicists need to show us they have learned from their obnoxious mistakes and have an agenda that is more that a sentiment. And the comparison to Hitler is one way to get them to deal with this.
Comment by MikeGene — June 14, 2005 @ 11:41 pm
June 15th, 2005 at 7:16 am
From a recent article in The New York Times: "What is best for babies born with a severe neurological condition? Two doctors thought they knew. At a series of medical meetings in the 1970's, Dr. John Lorber argued that they should be left to die. Dr. John M. Freeman said they should be saved." Read the rest here.
Comment by Krauze — June 15, 2005 @ 7:16 am
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:27 am
"at one time a freethinker was a man who had been brought up in the conception of religion, law, and morality, who reached freethought only after conflict and difficulty. But now a new type of born freethinkers has appeared, who grow up without so much as hearing that there used to be laws of morality, or religion, that authorities existed. They grow up in ideas of negation in everything"”in other words, utter savages."
Comment by inunison — February 2, 2006 @ 5:27 am