> most people who are keen on making such an argument, or who are identifying racial genetic differences as the primary takeaway of studies like this, are doing so to justify racism, either implicitly or explicitly.

That may certainly be true.

(Not OP, but) I always shutter when we want to deny scientific results because it might be "helpful" for someone making a racist argument.

My personal belief is that truth is the goal of science. Even in cases where the truth is uncomfortable.

▲

kstenerud 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's very nice to believe in a pure system that exists outside of politics, but that's simply not how the world works, and it never will be.

There is no scientific breakthrough that has occurred sans politics. Politics choose the winners and the losers, and the realm is science is no exception.

All science is political, because the scientific institutions are made up of people, who are political. Your research project lives and dies by politics, as does your dissertation, who gets published, who receives awards, etc.

So when it comes to research of limited utility that has a nasty cadre waiting in the wings to pounce upon it, the wise person would think twice.

▲

timmg 2 days ago | parent [-]

As I said to another person on this thread: if scientists let their political views override their pursuit of truth, the public will (rightly) lose faith in science.

So when you tell them to "trust the science" -- be it vaccinations, climate change or something else -- they have no reason to trust that science.

	▲	kstenerud a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		People don't have faith in inanimate things like science. They have faith in their leaders, who then lead the way in what to believe. If those leaders believe in the integrity of the scientific institutions, their flock will follow. If they're anti-vax, their flock will follow. If they believe in some medical quackery, their flock will follow. If they believe in eugenics, their flock will follow. It's happened before. What was fringe yesterday can become mainstream today, with the right leaders.
	▲	Nicook 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I enjoy that you are framing this as somethings that "may" happen in the future.

▲

suzzer99 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

There are a few scientific topics that are too easily manipulated by bad actors who ignore all the nuance. You have to tread very, very carefully on those and ask yourself what good vs. what harm can come from it. We know from history that giving opportunist leaders a chance to classify humans into distinct sub-groups based on intelligence and other key traits ends in catastrophe.

▲

timmg 2 days ago | parent [-]

I understand what you are saying and I don't disagree with the idea that bad actors will use science in bad ways.

But I think going down this path of denying (or hiding) science that can be used for bad ideas ends up causing (rightly, imho) a distrust of science -- which is far worse.

A distrust of science (not saying it was caused by this particular issue) is how we ended up with so much anti-vax sentiment in the US. And that is the reason we are seeing outbreaks of diseases that used to be minimal.

I think if you want people to "trust the science", you have to trust the people.

▲

convolvatron 2 days ago | parent [-]

it seems like you are simultaneously arguing for a science that holds itself outside public opinion, and one that is beholden to it.

no, wait, I get it.

all scientists should expect mistrust because of perceptions of bias of any of them, regardless of how well founded. that seems at the very least unproductive.

▲

timmg 2 days ago | parent [-]

> it seems like you are simultaneously arguing for a science that holds itself outside public opinion, and one that is beholden to it.

Apologies if I did a bad job explaining my opinion. But I was attempting to argue the exact opposite of that.

My view is that science should be the search for truth. And that if the truth is inconvenient for some political (or other) reason, so bet it. The truth is the goal. Full stop.

My feeling is that if scientists stop pursuing truth in cases where it doesn't fit their politics, they will (rightly, IMHO) lose the trust of the public. (Of course, in particular, those in the public who have different politics.)

▲

convolvatron 2 days ago | parent [-]

so, because science as whole is not pursuing the idea that people with different genetics as a population are inferior in some ways to others with sufficient vigor, that we should expect a justifiable general distrust of science including completely unrelated results like global warming. I don't see how this is prescriptive in any way, except maybe to ... I guess find scientists that are will to accepting funding for ideas that are popular with some people? do you think that would help if they found those ideas to be meritless? or even if they didn't?

▲

JuniperMesos a day ago | parent [-]

Unironically yes. Because it means that scientists are willing to lie or suppress results that offend their moral and poltical sensitbilities, and this should affect your credence in literally any scientific result reported by the institutional scientific research system.

	▲	tptacek 11 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Both sides of this thread are arguing based on fantastical versions of scientific practice that fit their priors. Scientists aren't avoiding studying this for fear of the harm it would do; they're not avoiding it at all.
	▲	suzzer99 a day ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It doesn't necessarily mean they lie or suppress results, it can just mean they don't pursue areas of study where the outcome is either a) nothing happens or b) bad actors use your results to "other" a whole group of people. What good can come from yet another study on race and IQ? Be specific. Just saying, "We should do science for science's sake" is not enough. We've done that. Go read The Bell Curve and knock yourself out. What people like you seem to want is continued, motivated hammering of the issue.
	▲	convolvatron 19 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		you're asking science to give you some excuse for treating some people worse than others. maybe that's just not a very well formed question for a scientist to answer. if we just strip away the race nonsense and ask a more .. meaningful question like 'what is the genetic basis for intelligence', then no one is shirking that question because of what the answer might be. its just a really hard and also pretty fuzzy question. but you still won't be satisfied with the answer, because even if one set of genes gets you 5% more 'intelligence' score, that still doesn't justify a apartheid state. do you think we should have different rules for people with different IQ scores? you're saying that because science as a whole isnt particularly interested in assuming _your_ biases, that the whole enterprise is meaningless and corrupt, and thus we can't trust anything those white coats say.