on the other hand, "politicizing" science is inevitable, and obviously actual science does not directly draw policy conclusions. you sort of get the vague feeling that we could actually be ruled by scientifically discovered facts, or by dudes down in a laboratory somewhere. but ask yourself whether that makes any sense or, even if it did, whether that's something you want. that the earth is getting warmer does not itself dictate any given policy, obviously. science can bear on policy, of course. but i would strongly advise you to stare directly at the history of science for awhile before you just, for example, embrace the equation of science and truth. the nazis had a science of racial differences, for example, but that already had a hundred-year history, and stood at the origin of anthropology. science takes place in a social and political and physical context, and you had better start thinking about who's funding what and why.

really it's funny that the public/political cult of science - its ever-growing pop prestige as the only outlet of truth - has been accompanied by actual work showing the way scientific truths are produced within power structures: foucault's, for example (esp with regard to the social sciences as handmaidens of subordination) and latour's (in the phsyical sciences).

but any way you look at it, science - even if it were the only source of objective truth - does not itself, or should not itself, articulate values or make policy decisions in a democracy. and really what this is all about is annexingthe epistemic prestige of science for whatever program you want to push, like evangelicals annexing the bible in the same way: as the only origin of truths. the cult of science is profoundly hierarchical, corresponding to a technocratic model of governance through expertise, which means: we want power. 

what you need to see is that there are many and varied sources of knowledge and value. high-school dropouts have access to truths no ph.d. has ever clearly contemplated.

Comments

[1littlewho]

too bad obama has to play the game to survive.
i like your final thought.

[La Rana]

So science is what exactly? people with PhDs PhDing? Strict allegiance to deduction or falsifiability or whathaveyou doesn't articulate values or dictate policy positions? Really?

[Contemplationist]

Sorry prof, but way before the Nazis, the science of racial differences was well on its way...and modern genetics is going to prove most of it right (it has a lot of it already).
Of course the Nazis got their hierarchies wrong.
In so much as a group on average performs better than another group on average in a certain endeavor, tells us nothing about 'moral worth' or anything like that.

Its sad, but its true. I don't want unsavory ideological groups to use it, thats why I prefer that non-haters grasp and deal with the fact that there are definitely non-trivial differences between races.

I don't want to get into an argument here. Anyone interested can look for reliable sources themselves.

[marcus]

"I don't want to get into an argument here."

The hallmark of a weak argument (see Ed Koch debating Jeremy Scahill on Israel and it's cause celebre boat massacre.)

There are average....average...differences in race...average race determination... Does your little test however have any general significance beyond what the test-makers impute it? And do not the attributes of all races massively overlap each other, even as the "averages" may differ?

For example, if you thought that one race inherently (we know that this is subject to wide variation based on eduumeducatitating and wealth) had a higher IQ (whatever that means) than another, that would mean nothing unless you thought that society should be arranged according to IQ. But if that is the case, then there is no reason to distinguish between the "average of races," but to distinguish between the average individual IQ holder, as clearly there is a wide range in every race. I.E. if neon pink people had a relatively low average IQ, but there are clearly geniuses and good-solid-college-worthy ones among their ape-like masses, and idiots among the gilded ubermench, it would be absurd, even non IQ-like, to judge those of their hue en masse.

So I propose that your "racial differences," even if true, are a load of shit, likely founded on the fact that your ex-girlfriend left you for a guy with a better evolutionary tan.

"The Nazis got their hierarchies wrong..." woooohoooo, of course!!! Because the Jews are the smartest of all, that's what you mean, right? Yet they got cooked! Whoooooops. A little slip-up in the train of eugenics. We'll get it right next time!

If these "racial differences" can't keep you out of the oven, maybe they don't mean too much?

[Contemplationist]

marcus chill out
i dont believe "society should be arranged" in any which way. organic, bottom-up processes are natural and will happen. The admittedly nasty process of bringing up race differences (which is rude, I admit) is simply so that denunciation of white people and "racism" can cease as incantations of the preists when discussing things like the income-gap, test-score gap, etc etc. thats all.

*sigh*
and listen pal i know whenever someone brings up racial differences your cat jumps out of its bag. but really its not a smart move to play with theories in your head when you are ignorant of current biology. Race is well-defined in biology (and yes, its ALSO a social construction) and racial differences are very very firmly confirmed. Now of course the whole debate about genes and environment is SEPARATE. But its not wholly unreasonable to think that genes play a role.

Try browsing GNXP for a change.

But yeah, chill out..you're hysterical. really, your life will turn out okay even if there are racial differences. mmmkay? :)

[marriotr]

Contemplationist, you need to find new "reliable sources". There's been no satisfying movement on a genetic basis for racial differences- the researchers in the field aren't even defining race well, most of the time. when they start getting positive results, it's usually based on a definition that's not whollly racial, like region of descent. I'm surfing GNXP now, and the information there is not exactly coming from unbiased actors. Nor is it all that accurate- I'm seeing a lot of empty statistical speculation there. I AM familiar with this territory- I'm getting an article published on the poor quality of racial genetics research right now.

[marcus]

If one is to believe all this meritocracy, things will be sorted out according to racial abilities, however "sadly," and so on, then the Nazis didn't "get their hierarchies wrong," they got it exactly right: they killed who they could kill - that's a hierarchy.