Politically/Religously Correct Constraint on Academia

[derbeder]

Your remarks in the last two paragraphs are right on. What we should be concerned with is the moral and political meaning and consequences of a certain classification. If "species" came to be thought of in such a way that a bunch of us on this board turned out to belong to different species, would that change anything about how we should be treating each other? No.
Someone sympathetic to the moral relevance of racial distinctions could reason as follows: What species we belong to is morally relevant. We are allowed to prize and protect our species and we have more responsibility towards members of our species than we do towards other things. If races indeed belonged to different species, then it would not be inappropriate for us to act differentially toward people according to their race. So now that we have discovered that whites and blacks belong to different species, as a white, I can justify my discriminatory behavior towards blacks.
I don't find the key premise of this reasoning in the least acceptable, so I am reluctant to ascribe it to anyone. But one wonders whether something of this sort is lurking behind a bunch of the remarks above.
It's really late right now and I have to resist the urge to elaborate. I will add some comments later.

 

[Russell]

Maybe some thought lurking behind Norsemaiden's comments is this: we are allowed to prize and protect the species we belong to and we have more responsibility towards members of our species than we do towards other things. If races belonged to different species, then it would not be inappropriate for us to act differentially toward people according to their race.

This may be the case, although I wouldn't like to presume and put words in Norsemaiden's mouth. Nevertheless, if this was the case, it is logic embedded in our current definition of species. If we changed that unit until it was the same as race, then it would be... well, the same as race, and the same issues that a lot of people currently fixate on regarding race would apply. All that would happen is we'd call it something different; perhaps we would have 'speciesism' rather than racism.

For this train of thought to apply it would require our current definition of species to be applied to race (which, as we've established doesn't work). Otherwise it's just semantics, and people who currently have issues would gain none of the relief they may think it may provide.

 

[derbeder]

I have indeed retracted any ascription of that thought to someone here before I saw your post.

The sort of reasoning I alluded to in my post of course does depend on using our current notion of species. If by whatever means we came to accept that races belonged to different species (and by this I mean a substantial discovery, not the acceptance of the sentence "Whites and blacks belong to different species" by changing the meaning of the expression "species"), then someone could reason in that way. Of course, one may think that the only way we could accept the sentence "Whites and blacks belong to different species" is by changing the meaning of "species" and in that case the issue would actually be just semantic. However, I left it open whether this is the case.

 

[Norsemaiden]

No, all I'm saying is that unless your system was applied blindly, with no interpretation of what represents morphological development (which, incidentally is extremely hard to tell in fossils now even with the current level of morphological disparity between species) it would require interpretation on our part. This would lead to exactly the same disagreements, differences and inconsistencies the current system has, but with even more argument due to the increased specicifity of the highest level.

If a complete series of fossils were available, showing the kladogenic evolution of two forms from one ancestor, the palaeontologist would say that new species had originated at that particular level in the geological strata at which every specimen could be assigned to one or other of the two forms. A problem would, however, remain: had two new species originated - or one? In such cases it is the practice of palaeontologists to say that two new species have originated, even though one of them may not differ from the ancestral species. (ref: 1951 “The species concept” Evolution, 5, 285-98). If by chance the other had not been found, no new name would have been given. The problem is not very often posed, however, because the imperfection of the geological record makes it impossible to follow the complete series of evolutionary changes, and favours the discovery of forms that are clearly distinct.

From what has been said it follows that the “species”, in the sense in which the word is used by paleontologists, is defined by arbitary criteria. Yet without the description and naming of species, palaeontology would be chaotic. No harm is done by the arbitrary distinction between the “species” of past times preserved in the rocks, if it is remembered that this is a special usage of the word species. One may refer, if one wishes, to “palaeontological” or “fossil” species; but it must be remembered that the meaning of these terms is “species in the palaeontological sense”. This must be born in mind in discussions of human evolution as revealed by the fossil evidence. It must also be remembered that the decision whether or not to distinguish two closely similar fossil forms as separate “palaeontological species” cannot command universal assent.

From “Race” by John R Baker (1974)

Paleontological decisions on species HAVE to be different because they can't observe the creature in the same way that biologists can with living species.
The two species of Gull who differ in their iris so slightly would not be distinguisable in a fossil record. Neither, however, can a fossil record tell you which species could hybridise and make a fertile offspring. So they cannot even be using this lastest modern definition of species!
It is likely that the paleontologist would see two very similar species as indistinguishable, and the hybrid also - and so call them all the same species. The rules have to be different in classifying fossils for practical reasons.
As far as a NON -paleontolgical defintion of speicies is concerned, the original definition of species is still the one least full anomalies and arbitrary decisions on what is a species and what is not. The present definition is a highly flawed fudge.
My criticism is that "species" used to be sensibly defined but has since been made hypocritical and vague - with continued argument among scientists as to how to define it.
Regardless of the USE of the original classification when we consider humans, what is of concern is that the entire matter of classifying life of any kind into species is now thrown into confusion.

 

[Russell]

If a complete series of fossils were available, showing the kladogenic evolution of two forms from one ancestor, the palaeontologist would say that new species had originated at that particular level in the geological strata at which every specimen could be assigned to one or other of the two forms. A problem would, however, remain: had two new species originated - or one? In such cases it is the practice of palaeontologists to say that two new species have originated, even though one of them may not differ from the ancestral species. (ref: 1951 “The species concept” Evolution, 5, 285-98). If by chance the other had not been found, no new name would have been given. The problem is not very often posed, however, because the imperfection of the geological record makes it impossible to follow the complete series of evolutionary changes, and favours the discovery of forms that are clearly distinct.

From what has been said it follows that the “species”, in the sense in which the word is used by paleontologists, is defined by arbitary criteria. Yet without the description and naming of species, palaeontology would be chaotic. No harm is done by the arbitrary distinction between the “species” of past times preserved in the rocks, if it is remembered that this is a special usage of the word species. One may refer, if one wishes, to “palaeontological” or “fossil” species; but it must be remembered that the meaning of these terms is “species in the palaeontological sense”. This must be born in mind in discussions of human evolution as revealed by the fossil evidence. It must also be remembered that the decision whether or not to distinguish two closely similar fossil forms as separate “palaeontological species” cannot command universal assent.

From “Race” by John R Baker (1974)

Yes, as I said in my very first post, the line between species is often arbitrarily drawn, this is a given. It's drawn at a very different line to that possible in living organisms, and that quote does in no way counter my argument. All it does is point out the obvious that it is harder in the fossil record to define species than in living species; no such concrete division currently exists in science between 'biological' and 'palaeontological' species, what would be the point of having different systems of classification for living and dead creatures? How would this advance science? It would just make the study of palaeobiology and biology more disparate, and following the history of life harder as a result.

 

[Russell]

Paleontological decisions on species HAVE to be different because they can't observe the creature in the same way that biologists can with living species.
The two species of Gull who differ in their iris so slightly would not be distinguisable in a fossil record. Neither, however, can a fossil record tell you which species could hybridise and make a fertile offspring. So they cannot even be using this lastest modern definition of species!
It is likely that the paleontologist would see two very similar species as indistinguishable, and the hybrid also - and so call them all the same species. The rules have to be different in classifying fossils for practical reasons.
As far as a NON -paleontolgical defintion of speicies is concerned, the original definition of species is still the one least full anomalies and arbitrary decisions on what is a species and what is not. The present definition is a highly flawed fudge.

Yes, this is what is known as cryptic speciation, and is well documented. These uncertanties are something palaeontologists have to deal with all the time, yet do so in order to fit all of life into a single tree, rather than having a totally different system for the miniscule proportion of the history of life that we can see and bother to study in depth. It is a compromise, what do you think we would gain from dividing taxonomy this way?

Edit - BTW I'm off to an exam now, so any further replies from me may have to wait a few days

 

[Norsemaiden]

Your remarks in the last two paragraphs are right on. What we should be concerned with is the moral and political meaning and consequences of a certain classification. If "species" came to be thought of in such a way that a bunch of us on this board turned out to belong to different species, would that change anything about how we should be treating each other? No.
Someone sympathetic to the moral relevance of racial distinctions could reason as follows: What species we belong to is morally relevant. We are allowed to prize and protect our species and we have more responsibility towards members of our species than we do towards other things. If races indeed belonged to different species, then it would not be inappropriate for us to act differentially toward people according to their race. So now that we have discovered that whites and blacks belong to different species, as a white, I can justify my discriminatory behavior towards blacks.
I don't find the key premise of this reasoning in the least acceptable, so I am reluctant to ascribe it to anyone. But one wonders whether something of this sort is lurking behind a bunch of the remarks above.
It's really late right now and I have to resist the urge to elaborate. I will add some comments later.

I will try and be as objective as I can in an analysis of this post.
I think it should be clear from my first post that I hold that science should not be prevented from researching and publishing data because of some notion of "morality". This "morality" is putting shackles on science. It is saying that science is a threat, and that certain facts should never be known.

What we should be concerned with is the moral and political meaning and consequences of a certain classification.

Debeder says that we must limit ourselves in how we classify life biologically because it can upset the applecart of the present predominant morality or politics.
Lenin would be proud. And not much different from those who persecuted Copernicus is it?

I think this is highly sinister.

If "species" came to be thought of in such a way that a bunch of us on this board turned out to belong to different species, would that change anything about how we should be treating each other? No

.
Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't. It is not for you to say or for anyone to dictate. Since our respective species would be able to interbreed, they would still be able to fall in love.
If you know someone is different from yourself it doesn't mean that you must be hostile towards them.
What if it became law that you must not discriminate between men and women to the extent that the sexes were henceforth to be merely called people and there should be no suggestion that there is any sexual preference for either (not that "either" existed any more officially) since all are just "people".

Then supposing it was said that science may not attempt to prove that sex differences exist amongst humans and even such research was evil and suggested that there was an intention to create inequality in how men would treat women. The propaganda might say that such men who believed there was this difference would rape, beat or belittle women in various ways.
That is the kind of ridiculousness you are talking about.
After a while of this, some men would actually think that because they did recognise women as being different, that meant that indeed they should abuse them. The propaganda had warped them in just the way that some people have been warped to think that acknowledging racial difference inevitably means that one race/species will want to hurt another out of an uncontrolable lust for power or just for the sheer fun of it.
Nonsense. Some people might feel that way, but the point is that science should lay down the facts regardless.

How stupid for one species of human to feel that they must tread all over all other species of animals, plants or whatever. I feel that I am a different species from the bumble bee yet I wish to preserve it. I care about all species. But I will discriminate in that if a dangerous species is threatening someone from my own species (whom I have no reason to consider a liability) then I would remove/kill that threat. You do put your own first - but that doesn't at all have to mean that you hate others.
I am often entirely friendly and civil to people I don't consider to be my species. It depends on them. Actually I dont consider ANYONE who drives a four by four, speeds, destroys habits, damages trees, smokes, goes to whores to be my species and actually YES you would be right that I would treat them with contempt. But I don't even need science to tell me their genes are different to mine! I would love to have that researched though!
Never confuse self-defence with hostility. The above example of another species to me is one I consider my species to be under serious assault from. Don't tell me I am evil because I wish them to be removed.
Same with non-Whites coming to my country. 10% at least of my species here has now gone and science is allowed to announce that the future suggests we will become a small minority at some point in the future. Meanwhile, Africa, Asia and other non-white countries are set never to be less than 98% the same in the future. I was going to ask you why I should not care about that, but I think your answer could be: because you just have to accept the inevitability of it and "we are all human" anyway...!

 

[hibernal_dream]

I will try and be as objective as I can in an analysis of this post.
I think it should be clear from my first post that I hold that science should not be prevented from researching and publishing data because of some notion of "morality". This "morality" is putting shackles on science. It is saying that science is a threat, and that certain facts should never be known.

I could see this somewhat backfiring with your philosophy for the simple reason that science doesn't always know whether it is right. Say a bunch of scientists discovered humans and a rare type of chimp could interbreed and were therefore of the "same species". Some bestiophile would no doubt have no hesitation taking advantage of the finding and proceed to couple with one. Meanwhile the offspring would be less than impressed. Here, science is the bad guy because it is us that has to decide what the results mean (that highly similar DNA and interbreeding = same species, just as ancient civilizations concluded the world was flat because of what they observed), and what we are to make of that (that therefore people should breed with chimps). These are decisions which should be made by governments, who understand their ethical obligations and know that some citizens will not react well to 'the truth'. We need to acknowledge that scientists do make mistakes, and this might be a good reason for banning the research - in my example above, what good would come out of showing humans and chimps can interbreed? The risk the result is wrong and the disastrous consequences flowing from that is greater than the chance it is not. You cannot separate the science from our interpretation of it and the consequences of that. Scientists are already prevented from researching and publishing a particular topic because they lack funding for it - something they are not going to get if people don't approve of what they are doing. The "morality" is there whether we like it or not.

Same principle applies to "holocaust deniers". As much as I am against prosecuting these academics, some governments have acknowledged, reasonably, that historians do not "prove" history - they draw conclusions from the likelihood that a particular event happened. However I do think it is a mistake to completely reject what they have to say, and go to ridiculously overblown measures (jail time) to censor it.

 

[speed]

Academia in my opinion, has destroyed almost all the humanities and social sciences, including philosophy.

Is it perhaps better for a philosopher or philosophy, to be totally unconnected and free from Academia? In the American example, I think it is.

Philosophy has become so dogmatized and specialized, no one besides philosophy students and professors care. History has become overly researched, focusing on the minutae of detail rather than broader and more important themes. Literature has died in America as Creative Writing programs and Literature departments have standardized writing, producing terrible novels and stories. The Social Sciences, have pretty much collapsed upon themselves, have nowhere to go but academia, and only exist in highly diluted forms in business outside of academia.

In short, I think Academia restrains creative thought, pigeonholes and standardizes thought, and thus makes every non-practical subject (humanities, social sciences, hard sciences without much practical use like physics, etc) inconsequential apart from a few practical scientific and medical fields.

And as an aside, Hermann Hesse's The Glass Bead Game (or Master Lodi's Apprenticeship) I think is an excellent fictionalized example of the cutoff or dichotomy between academia and real life. Its a terribly vexing book, absolutely terrible and yet wonderfully good in places, and one of the few complex pieces of writing (complex plot, characters) Hesse attempted; but for some reason, I remember it everytime I think of Academia.

Oh, and finally, the aforementioned reasons detail why I chose to enter the public sphere, not academia. I was accepted for a phd in history and economic history, still think about enrolling, but these criticisms always stay with me. I'd much rather waste my work-time engaged in practical and public matters, than waste it writing journal articles and promoting idiotic impractical academic ideas at conferences and in classes.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Originally Posted by Norsemaiden
I will try and be as objective as I can in an analysis of this post.
I think it should be clear from my first post that I hold that science should not be prevented from researching and publishing data because of some notion of "morality". This "morality" is putting shackles on science. It is saying that science is a threat, and that certain facts should never be known.

I could see this somewhat backfiring with your philosophy for the simple reason that science doesn't always know whether it is right. Say a bunch of scientists discovered humans and a rare type of chimp could interbreed and were therefore of the "same species". Some bestiophile would no doubt have no hesitation taking advantage of the finding and proceed to couple with one. Meanwhile the offspring would be less than impressed. Here, science is the bad guy because it is us that has to decide what the results mean (that highly similar DNA and interbreeding = same species, just as ancient civilizations concluded the world was flat because of what they observed), and what we are to make of that (that therefore people should breed with chimps). These are decisions which should be made by governments, who understand their ethical obligations and know that some citizens will not react well to 'the truth'. We need to acknowledge that scientists do make mistakes, and this might be a good reason for banning the research - in my example above, what good would come out of showing humans and chimps can interbreed? The risk the result is wrong and the disastrous consequences flowing from that is greater than the chance it is not. You cannot separate the science from our interpretation of it and the consequences of that. Scientists are already prevented from researching and publishing a particular topic because they lack funding for it - something they are not going to get if people don't approve of what they are doing. The "morality" is there whether we like it or not.

Same principle applies to "holocaust deniers". As much as I am against prosecuting these academics, some governments have acknowledged, reasonably, that historians do not "prove" history - they draw conclusions from the likelihood that a particular event happened. However I do think it is a mistake to completely reject what they have to say, and go to ridiculously overblown measures (jail time) to censor it.

Science not always knowing "whether it is right" is no objection at all. Nothing is EVER certain - but only somewhere along a line from vanishingly improbable to extremely,overwhelmingly probable. That is how scientists are supposed to think. This way, should further evidence come to light, data can be reconsidered.
The conclusions you jump to concerning humans and chimps mating are a logical fallacy: circumventing having to use your intellect with irrelevent excuses and saying something that attempts to disqualify what I have said without actually addressing it.
To rephrase this logical fallacy you are arguing that there should be moral and political restraints upon people who are curious about the universe and want to discover the wonders thereof (scientists) because humans might discover they could breed with chimps and then all hell would break loose.

If humans could breed with any other animals you wouldn't need scientists to prove it. Humans would have tried it out anyway!

There are double standards in that scientists are allowed to experiment in such areas as the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) which must cost a fortune in funding and threatens to destroy the planet
http://www.kressworks.com/Science/A_black_hole_ate_my_planet.htm

yet discoveries pointing to the ancient people from Europe, known as the Solutreans, being the first people ever in America are hampered and affected by scandal - such as that surrounding Kennewick man.

So the latter research is considered more dangerous to humanity not to mention to the pride of the Native Americans than allowing experiments to take place that can cause a black hole or allowing the use of various chemicals that destroy the environment. In fact it is not really protecting the tribal myths of the Native Americans at all that is a vested interest here - but rather the hegemony of the New World Order).

 

[Russell]

Is it perhaps better for a philosopher or philosophy, to be totally unconnected and free from Academia? In the American example, I think it is.

This is interesting because I'd have thought the system of tenure you have in the US would give your academics more creative/research freedom than academics without tenure may have. What do you think has driven this change in the US?

 

[speed]

This is interesting because I'd have thought the system of tenure you have in the US would give your academics more creative/research freedom than academics without tenure may have. What do you think has driven this change in the US?

From my experience, to get tenure (which has been getting harder due to the glut of phds and the reluctance of tenured profs to retire), one has to act pretty conservatively, and follow the major trends and philosophies of whatever subject they're a professor in. None of these lowly untenured professors want to rock the boat essentially.

 

[hibernal_dream]

To rephrase this logical fallacy you are arguing that there should be moral and political restraints upon people who are curious about the universe and want to discover the wonders thereof (scientists) because humans might discover they could breed with chimps and then all hell would break loose.

Nope. I'm saying that people who are curious should be able to strive for the truth, but cannot always do so in reality - moral limits should be used to protect from potentially useless, wrong, and therefore dangerous discoveries, not to prevent discovery of the truth. I used the example of taxonomy because it shows much of biology is classification and categorization, things which nature is not adapted to but which humans try to superimpose for a better understanding.

 

[OldScratch]

moral limits should be used to protect from potentially useless, wrong, and therefore dangerous discoveries, not to prevent discovery of the truth.

Useless? wrong? dangerous? Moral limits? According to what or whom? This sounds like the type of arguments propounded by religious(Christian)zealots against, for example, stem-cell research. I doubt many here would be terribly sympathetic to that mind-set...why the difference on this topic?

What "dangerous discovery" do you suppose science would uncover?

 

[Scourge of God]

Internal combustion? Nuclear fission? Genetic engineering?:

You're not thinking all that hard here, buddy.

 

[OldScratch]

Internal combustion? Nuclear fission? Genetic engineering?:

You're not thinking all that hard here, buddy.

I was thinking perhaps the poster referred to things more along the lines of intentionally avoiding purely natural human/biological dicoveries and the like so as not to put forth dangerous(ie. socially unpopular, racially troublesome)ideas, given the topic at hand. But so be it...Point taken.

Buddy?

 

[Norsemaiden]

Are there any theoretically " useless, wrong, and therefore dangerous discoveries" in the field of biology that could be made?

Well now I have figured out something that is key to this whole argument.

The perameters of science are set by the ruling class. The prefered science of any particular time or place is a product of this.

Medieval = weapons as opposed to witchcraft
Church vs Copernicus and Gallileo notions of Earth going around the sun

Rennaissance = weapons/armour

Enlightenment -> tolerance -> free enquiry, study of nature, heavens, semi-religious attitude ie Nature is hand of God

British Emprire = ruling races, Darwin, classification of nature, industrial revolution, trains, weapons for the Empire

Communists = Lysenko

Universalists, Jews and Corporations = prohibition on many areas of biology/species questions, pro GM crops and pro unlimited population, want money and research drugs, chemicals, etc. and weapons as well as dangerous developments like particle accelerator.

So because our present ruling class as described above, THAT is the principle reason why science is limited in the way it is.

----------------------

Art historian Gombrich said that art history is the story of great patrons - so art was affected in a similar way.

Church in medieval times = religious art

Rennaissance = princes and merchants (eg by Durer)
Kings painted by Holbein.
Merchants = taste for landscape and buildings
Then there was state art, eg. 2nd French Republic - Napoleon, propaganda art, imperial subjects
Victorian middle classes had a taste for mythological themes, landscape, horses, etc.
Modern art dictated by Jews/Internationalists/freemasons this reflects the Old Testament commandment against graven images so representatons of nature fell out of favour and abstract art into favour, preference for themes that are degenerate, humanist or Universalist.

Even the famous philosophers have largely been products of their age and favoured according to the ruling powers of the time.
German princes and Henry the 8th latched onto Martin Luther to justify their autonomy - and indeed the likes of Gandhi, Martin Luther King are only well known because what they were saying suited powerful forces with agendas at the time.

So science, art (which must include literature also) is all shackled to what is permitted by the ruling powers of the time.

Much of modern medicine is influenced by the discoveries of the use of herbs, and Nicolas Culpeper was crucial to that.

Researching about him one finds how he was lucky indeed to have a narrow window of opportunity
There were twenty years, during his lifetime, when censorship of print was relaxed.

Before this, since 1603, all printing, selling and possession of books had to be approved by the scrutiny of the Church, in the “Star Chamber” of the “Company of Stationers”. The civil war ended this ecclesiastical censorship until two years following the restoration of Charles II; the Company of Stationers came back with a vengeance but Culpeper’s work had already flowered and they could not consign it easily to oblivion.

Herbalists today owe much to Culpeper, who helped to make herbalism a credible alternative to conventional medicine.

http://www.anus.com/tribes/uk/forum/

Culpeper's books have been essential to herbalism. In allowing the ruling class to dictate what we may know and how we may think we are truly enslaving ourselves.

I can think of no more ignorant attitude than that which tries to justify such manipulative interference by a self-interested state.

 

[Demiurge]

Just before we go into all that nonsense about why "race" doesn't exist though - I know that there is as much genetic difference between an African from one tribe and one from another as there could be between either of them and a Swede. I am not saying all Africans are of one species - they could be a number of species.

Only if you take into account too few loci.

 

[MetalBooger]

So because our present ruling class as described above, THAT is the principle reason why science is limited in the way it is.

That pretty much sums it up. However do you really think the world is this totalitarian and uniform in who rules? And what exactly is being suppressed? Apart from perhaps studies on stem cells..

Universalists, Jews and Corporations = prohibition on many areas of biology/species questions, pro GM crops and pro unlimited population, want money and research drugs, chemicals, etc. and weapons as well as dangerous developments like particle accelerator.

So basically neo liberalism>globalization>capitalism. Ideally we would like to believe this new system as competative, giving the maximum freedom possible to everyone. Now this doesnt always turn out, but currently i am seeing far more liberty than say, 200 years ago. In this world where the ruling class stresses competative industry, it is no wonder then why we are seeing the interests of big business influence science more than the little man. If you insist that we are living in stage where the ruling elite are stressing capitalism, then it should be no suprise when scientists with unpopular ideas are set aside.

You can pretty much do anything you want if you have enough money, just think about it. A mad scientist with a huge hidden laboratory could easily do all the scientific research he wanted, without being influenced by the morals of society. But for regular scientists, they lack the resources probably due to their inability to sell their ideas for funding. So really, at least i believe, scientific research is not being constrained by anyone, it is their inability to achieve their goals, probably due to a lack of business sauvy.In a way scientific constraint is due mostly to the incompetence of scientists.

 

[JColtrane]

So are you saying that a scientist should only do something that is "sellable"? Or that he/she should have the "business savy" to wrap their research in enough bullshit that someone will pay for it? To me that seems like the very viewpoint that is constraining science.