Science looks at human beings in their animal aspects. As animals, we are not always equal. It is precisely in the ways we are not simply animals that we are equal. So science, left to itself, poses a serious challenge to egalitarianism.

Who is this “Science” that he keeps quoting, and when did s/he begin to make value judgments?

At first I thought this article was about Republicans:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003969241_webelephants23.html

We’ll say anything when we’re tipsy.

Maybe it’s just me, but I seem to agree with him. It sounds like he’s saying that we, like “liberalism”, values the moral equality between human beings, whether or not that view is somehow “scientifically” backed.

Given that our understanding of even the tiniest aspects of human intelligence, moral decision making, or even language, is so utterly, utterly basic, that seems a traditional and respectable response.

The only problematic aspect of this is that he leaves unmentioned the traditional conservative view which rapidly embraces any notion of inequality and superiority for their preferred group — whether it be backed by “science”, or religion, or ethnicity, or some more fleeting in / out group determinant.

I.e., why is it that this is a tension for “liberalism” especially, and what is the opposite? Do conservatives back “restricted” science, since he suggests liberals ‘back’ unrestricted science?

We’ll say anything when we’re tipsy.

And talk about handsy!

Watson and many scientists assert a kind of reductionism — a belief that human beings are the sum of their chemical processes and have no value beyond their achievements and attributes. But progressives, at their best, have a special concern for the different, the struggling and the weak. When it comes to eugenics, they face not only a tension but a choice — and they should choose human equality over the pursuit of human perfection.

Somehow the left has been liking science and promoting civil rights for a little while. Go figure.

Should be stamped: “Warning! Sophistry for entertainment purposes only! Not to be used to form real public opinions or policy!”

you know once, just once i’d like a study that finds that White males are dumber than a box of rocks and who need an entire society set to up their advantage to even survive to adulthood and that all Eskimos are in the super genius category. Somehow I doubt clowns like Michael Gerson would be filling the blogsphere and the rest of the media with stories demanding an eskimo dictatorship.

just saying.

Yes, we on the left are all for completely unrestricted science, with no strings attached.

I cannot wait until the genetically modify cows to have gills so we can raise them in tanks and save the pasture land for golf courses.

And food additives? Don’t get me started.

The fact is, when it comes to animal experimentation, the ‘progressives’ have long argued that anything that is necessary for Science is A-OK for us.

Wait…What?

Bush and many Republicans assert a kind of reductionism — a belief that human beings are the sum of their political interests and have no value beyond their affiliations. But conservatives, at their best, have a special concern for the wealthy, the property-owners and the entrepreneurs. When it comes to power-grabs, they face not only a tension but a choice — and they should choose the rich over the faithful.

Yuval Levin of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a rising academic analyst of these trends…

This would be the EPPC that just hired Rick Santorum and is “dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy”.

The only problematic aspect of this is that he leaves unmentioned the traditional conservative view which rapidly embraces any notion of inequality and superiority for their preferred group

I think it’s actually worse than this. He implies that this traditionally conservative view is actually a liberal one — or at least that liberals, because they support abortion rights, are the ones with the moral dilemma (since, he assumes, the natural response to knowing about an “undesirable” genetic trait would be to abort). In other words, same old conservative mental illness: assuming, against all available evidence, that everyone thinks the same way he does.

El Cid: Yeah, I tended to agree with him too, though maybe for different reasons. The left does tend to align itself, for the most part, with egalitarianism and science*. If you believe in both of these, then you need to decide what to do if science one day shows that two groups aren’t as equal as you’d hope. For example, if it’s really true that black people are, on average, substantially and intractably less intellectually capable than white people, then this will lead to differences in achievement, representation, and other consequences that make egalitarians uncomfortable.

I don’t think this problem is as big as it seems. As you said, all this stuff about intelligence, decision making, and so on are very tough to figure out. We don’t have anything analogous to a Theory of Evolution or a Theory of Relativity on which to rely, so it seems reasonable to err on the side of equality (especially since erring on the side of inequality, as was done during the days of slavery and segregation, wasn’t exactly a recipe for a peaceful and stable society).

Wilson is far more extreme than any scientist I’ve ever encountered. (The comment about black employees is particularly inexcusable, especially since it isn’t based on anything scientific.) So using his views to illustrate a point (while claiming that there are many scientists who feel the same way) is hard to defend. Unrestricted science doesn’t necessarily lead to anti-egalitarianism, in part because most scientists–like most people–incorporate other factors into their decisions about policy.

I think conservatives do back restricted science–hence their views on stem cells, etc.) and feel perfectly comfortable claiming that there are Things Man Was Not Meant to Know.

*Though there are certainly some anti-science nutjob Luddites among the Left.

eskimo dictatorship

Heads up, mikey. Incoming band name.

I, for one, welcome our new Innuit overlords.

Blub blub… Moooooo……

For example, if it’s really true that black people are, on average, substantially and intractably less intellectually capable than white people, then this will lead to differences in achievement, representation, and other consequences that make egalitarians uncomfortable.

But these are philosophical questions and moral choices, not science vs idealism. Even if you could find an objective definition for terms like “black people” and “intelligence”, and scientifically prove that the group called “black people” is, on average, less “intelligent” than the group called “white people”, science still hasn’t said anything whatsoever.

Science doesn’t say that people should be classified by skin color, measured by mental capacity, or assigned value based on their usefulness and capabilities. Science doesn’t say that less intelligent people automatically deserve fewer rights. Those are all social choices. You could just as accurately say that if science showed the elderly to be less physically strong, then science would say that we should cull everyone over 60.

We make social choices that are based on certain assumptions. Science provides us with a way of testing those assumptions. If we turn out to have been wrong about some things, science will not tell us how to use that knowledge or whether we need to change our priorities. If we think of new ways to visualize society, science will allow us to test those also, but we will still have to be the ones to ask the questions and interpret the results.

It is not that our value judgments take priority over science; it is that they are two completely different things.

Does anybody have access behind the sign-in wall? Because the title of his next article :Where Soy and Chai Meet Che and Mao sounds like a rejected title for Jonah Goldberg’s book and promises extended hilarity.

Oh wait, I see that registration is “free and required.”

I just had a sea cow steak last night. It wasn’t as tasty as land cow, but it was a heck of a lot better than the dugongburger I tried last week.

I cannot wait until the genetically modify cows to have gills so we can raise them in tanks and save the pasture land for golf courses.

Cowquaculture! I want a cowquarium!

It would make it kinda hard to get the milk out of ’em, though, wouldn’t it?

[waves hello to her Carnal Request neighbor.]

Trilateral Chairman: The name of the person that you refer to as Wilson is
actually James Watson.

just once i’d like a study that finds that White males are dumber than a box of rocks and who need an entire society set to up their advantage to even survive to adulthood and that all Eskimos Japanese are in the super genius category

That would be Richard Lynn.

But these are philosophical questions and moral choices, not science vs idealism.

Yeah, I essentially agree. Sorry if that wasn’t clear; I think I was writing too quickly. The example of the 60-year-olds is a good one. Their abilities are measurable by science. What we decide to do about the findings is not science; it’s determined by our principles, our ideals, our notion of justice. I don’t think Gerson handles this distinction very well at all.

‘Course, some scientific findings lead to more difficult decisions than others. If you find that there really ARE racial differences (excluding the massive difficulties involved in coming to a clear resolution of that problem), then you have to figure out what to do. If you don’t find any differences, then there’s not much to worry about. I don’t think this is a contradiction, really. It’s just a difficulty, and it’s one that’s inherent to science, which is pretty good at giving us complicated problems to solve.

I…can’t believe I got that wrong. I’m going to go home and drown my shame in wine.

[smiles and waves back… then worries that the wave was actually not intended for him and transitions into an ear scratch at the last moment]

sorry, I was responding to Ray. Now I’m definitely going home.

No TC, I was waving at Marita – assuming that that is the confusion. I could tell which comment was for me and which was for Ray. I also agree that we agree and would like to share a piece of fluffy-love-togetherness cake with you. I baked it myself, with help.

Yep, just read the article. Beautifully succinct and apt shorter version.

It’s amazing the lengths and use of words required, to camouflage a riduculous opinion. Perhaps it’s just a result of emotional or ideologically-based reasoning; but I wonder sometimes how much of it is wilful propaganda.

Maybe it’s both; the definition of doublethink…

Another thing is, even if you could objectively define “intelligence” and “black people”, and even if you could measure intelligence in a way that is quantitative, objective, and meaningful, and even if you then did conclude that people in one racial (or ethnic) group were, on average, inherently (as in genetically) less intelligent than those in another, it would not be useful or reasonable, even setting aside for the sake of argument our egalitarian beliefs, to classify people by ethnicity. Why? Because in this hypothetical setting we can actually measure intelligence meaningfully on an individual basis.

For example, if it’s really true that black people are, on average, substantially and intractably less intellectually capable than white people, then this will lead to differences in achievement, representation, and other consequences that make egalitarians uncomfortable.

I love the default to white smarter/black dumber, and by “love” I mean “am filled with rage by”. From the popular stereotypes currently going around, shouldn’t Asians be ruling the world? Especially since all the scientists are ALREADY Asian!

Look, punks, just because people may be biologically unequal doesn’t mean they should have a different set of human rights. It’s all well and good to preach survival of the fittest when you’re at the top of the pile, but it’s a lot more difficult to equality from up there, where you might lose a couple of status rungs.

Gee, that Gershon article is so close to actually meaning something. I’m reminded of Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from meow meow meow (is that ever actually going to be published? Poor man.) which also (apparently) argues that because liberal folks occasionally feel a “temptation” to be evil, it makes them much worse than people who are constantly, unashamedly evil. QED.

It is often troubling for our doctrine of human equality that conservatives are consistently shown to be both intellectually and morally inferior creatures.

Fortunately, our major political party which claims to represents liberalism spends most of its time genuflecting to those same backwards conservatives, so no conflict is created.

Marita, I happen to have a cowquarium. I keep it on the shelf next to my gnomarium. You are, of course, welcome to visit both. I’ll put out some nosh, we’ll make it an evening.

Did you see the slight of hand? Gerson starts out talking about one man’s hateful, ignorant view of eugenics, which any reasonable person will reject as false out of hand–then goes on to imply that liberals will have a problem with this view since it conflicts with their politican ideology. But there is no conflict: the idea that Africans are less smart or that children with birth defects are worth less are false.

In other words, the originator of the phrase “axis of evil” is no smarter now than he ever was.

Marita, I happen to have a cowquarium. I keep it on the shelf next to my gnomarium. You are, of course, welcome to visit both. I’ll put out some nosh, we’ll make it an evening.

Cool. Can I come? I’ll bring my casually dressed monkey…

mikey

There simply is no universal definition of intelligence, and if there were it would be impossible to test on an accurate and fair scale accross world populations.

If you want to test how smart populations of Africans are, you can go to where they live and test them on the skills and knowledge that are required of them in their daily lives. Go to a cattle-herding society and have them tell you about cattle. You’ll find that they are devastatingly smart. So they can’t read. What on earth does reading have to do with them?

If the test is written and administerd by white people, you can bet that white people are gonna come out on top. It is the arbitrary nature of intelligence testing.

Liberals like science. Science proves that black people are stupid. Therefore liberals are racists.

I will modify that to summarize his logical progression, replacing words that he uses meaninglessly with Welsh Baby Names.

Gilvaethwys like Ysberin. Ysberin proves that Wmffres are Dafydd. Therefore Gilvaethwys are Twrgadarn.

Vote Republican!

I can’t wait for the genetic test that tells you your child is going to grow up to be a conservative…

I want to find the causal link between wingnut hack-jobs on science — they hate that liberal bias inherent in reality, and loathe science even more for being the messenger — and really cool band names. First we have “Esikmo Dictatorship” /Eric Idle’s Voice/ “who split up, re-forming as Eskimo Overlords” /end Eric Idle/ , and now, this gem of brilliance:

casually dressed monkey

I want to see them both on the bill with Cowquaculture. (All of them would, of course, open for Toad the Wet Sprocket.)

Is there no flipping end to the endless generation of think-tanks for people who can’t think and hate people who can?

Or are the recent Californian fires a sign that God is angry with the anti-think tankers (including the ones in think-tank-tops), but She has really appalling aim?

that is a good wingnut/party hat combo. thank you.

My own take on ‘eugenics’ is colored (pardon the pun) by my experience in the fostercare/adoption world. Our two sons were
adopted from the foster care program of our local county
social services department. Both were born to parents who
were not, to put it mildly, capable of or interested in raising
a child. The sheer number of children born into such circumstances
is overwhelming the social service/CPS systems in many
parts of this country – and that’s WITH relatively legal abortion sometimes available.

I’ve spoken with fellow adoptive parents, and argued my position
that everybody should receive an implanted contraceptive at puberty. If you take and pass parenting training classes (and any other hurdles we can think of) you and your partner get enough of the antidote to conceive. We’d have fewer, but better parents.

Curiously, none of them think this is a particularly bad idea. Maybe seeing, up close and for long term, the effects on these children of four or five years exposure to their birth parents has altered their preconceptions.