It’s been done many times before that insofar as there have been publications that have been labeled as scientific studies on the relationship between race and intelligence. Many of them can probably be found under the title “Social Darwinism” (not to be confused with biological evolution, nor to be confused with something endorsed by Charles Darwin).In a way, that hypothetical study isn’t so hypothetical. Something similar was already done in the 90s.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
Such data has to be replicated independently. It is not a simple matter of IQ but a host of other factors. Poor nutrition, a lack of education, emotional problems… certain racial and ethnic groups experience those things more than others. Even things like being exposed to lead paint which can affect mental development. This is a complicated issue that involves many variables.Let’s imagine (hypothetically) a scientific study were made of IQ of various racial groups, and it was found, in a statistically and scientifically valid way, that group A was (on average) most intelligent, followed by group B, followed by group C.
Now, such a test could not have any social or practical utility, but would possibly encourage prejudices, if it leaked into the popular press.
Would the best thing to do be:
Any solutions?
- to suppress the results, either by claiming that the tests result was not valid (i.e. the IQ test was ‘culturally specific’);
- to ignore the results, and level ad hominem attacks against the scientists making the tests;
- for the academic ‘establishment’ systematically to deny that such testing is possible.
OH yes, I agree 100%, Some of the stuff Tesla had was incredible, but it would put alot of big industries out of business, I think its fair to say there is likely many things that are being held back, kept secret from the public in order to keep the money rolling in.By the way, does anyone here believe that green tech has been suppressed by industry? Alternatives to fossil fuels, free energy devices, etc.?
Many of Tesla’s inventions are still being suppressed by the U.S. government, apparently…
You have the data tested again and again to see if the results can be replicated if done exactly the same way. There of course, will be many who will look closely at your study to see if you failed to take certain factors into account.Let’s imagine (hypothetically) a scientific study were made of IQ of various racial groups, and it was found, in a statistically and scientifically valid way, that group A was (on average) most intelligent, followed by group B, followed by group C.
Now, such a test could not have any social or practical utility, but would possibly encourage prejudices, if it leaked into the popular press.
Would the best thing to do be:
Any solutions?
- to suppress the results, either by claiming that the tests result was not valid (i.e. the IQ test was ‘culturally specific’);
- to ignore the results, and level ad hominem attacks against the scientists making the tests;
- for the academic ‘establishment’ systematically to deny that such testing is possible.
Why then are most of Teslas info kept classified from the public? That was decades ago??Suppressing scientific results is ultimately useless because the results will be independently rediscovered by others who will not suppress them.
And who would you trust to keep this knowledge secret and not to use it for their own gain?
ICXC NIKA
We’ve got a lot of technology developed by or derived by development of the Nazis. And let’s not forget the experiments that the USA did with exposing people to various dangerous elements to see what would happen that now form part of medical knowledge.How about scientific data obtained by ugly or immoral means? For instance, what if Nazi Josef Mengele, with his hateful experiments on living human beings, discovered something amazing and life altering. Should the data be destroyed as a deterrent to other unethical research?
I don’t agree. The evil is in the past.How about scientific data obtained by ugly or immoral means? For instance, what if Nazi Josef Mengele, with his hateful experiments on living human beings, discovered something amazing and life altering. Should the data be destroyed as a deterrent to other unethical research?
I lean towards destroying it. It’s like spending dirty money.
The real question is not so much that, as “who will be trusted to control it?”People will take information to hurt others. People can use a car or a hammer as a weapon.
The information must be used responsibly. Will the information be used responsibly?
And yet this is often the case in life.The real question is not so much that, as “who will be trusted to control it?”
The armed-society crowd likes to say that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them. They have a limited point. But the same case can be made: Knowledge is power; if it is restricted, only the restrictors will be empowered.
ICXC NIKA.
Darwin did not create Social Darwinism.And yet this is often the case in life.
There is genetic information that is being suppressed because people would use it irresponsibly. Darwin became social darwinism which justified much evil. So it depends.
This seems to be a popular misconception. Social Darwinism wasn’t scientific. As mentioned before within this thread it also wasn’t from Darwin. It applied Darwin’s name.Darwin became social darwinism which justified much evil. So it depends.
Natural selection isn’t the survival of the “strongest.” It’s the tendency towards members of a population with attributes that are a better fit for their environment to survive (or as Herbert Spencer labeled it, the “survival of the fittest”). Many environments are not static. So the features that make one well adapted for it can change over time. If you put a polar bear in the woods or a grizzly bear in a polar region you might find that they are in an environment in which they don’t fit well. Members of a population that are physically weaker but have resistance to some pathogen may become the ones that are “more fit” if there were an outbreak of that pathogen in their population. There are environments in which strength contributes to being more fit, but this isn’t always the case. .
Exactly. How information is used.Darwin did not create Social Darwinism.
Social Darwinism was a highjacking of his theories that wasn’t even based on science.
ICXC NIKA
I wouldn’t even say that it used the information. It used the buzz words and associated phrases.Exactly. How information is used.
Misused or abused. Like a gun can be or a hammer or a car.I wouldn’t even say that it used the information. It used the buzz words and associated phrases.
Yes, but this is not the sort that should be suppressed. The kind of data that should be suppressed looks like this:
Hey! Here is an easy way to engineer a superbug that could start a global pandemic!
Hey! Here is an easy way to break the encryption on all computer systems in the world!
Hey! Here is an easy way to make a nuclear weapon out of parts from Radio Shack!
There is a potential for all technology to be used for harm. But in most cases, the benefits far outweigh the potential for abuse. There are exceptions, such as the ones I listed previously. Any technology which can immediately turn an individual into a global threat should be restricted or suppressed.People will take information to hurt others. People can use a car or a hammer as a weapon.
The information must be used responsibly. Will the information be used responsibly?
The question is whether the right person can judge what to reveal and what not to. But the wise are rare.There is a potential for all technology to be used for harm. But in most cases, the benefits far outweigh the potential for abuse. There are exceptions, such as the ones I listed previously. Any technology which can immediately turn an individual into a global threat should be restricted or suppressed.
The original example, evidence of racial inequality, certainly has the potential for abuse, but no one person would be able to single-handedly abuse it. Governments and populations would have to collectively decide to abuse the information. Humanity will effectively police itself, that is the sort of information that we will use as responsibly as we collectively can.
The difference in my examples are that there is no potential for collective policing. An individual acting alone could abuse the technology to destroy a society. The defenses society could mount would either be incredibly oppressive to individuals, or to simply keep the technology out of the hands of the public, by suppressing or restricting it.
I thought my criteria were pretty clear. It may be possible for there to be some technology which poses an existential threat to humanity, but does so in such a subtle way that the creators don’t notice it, but we obviously haven’t seen any examples of that yet.The question is whether the right person can judge what to reveal and what not to. But the wise are rare.
Information is very often suppressed anyway.