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 12 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 20 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.