That really depends on how they follow them. For example, eugenics is scientifically sound. It’s morally depraved in practice, but the scientific method doesn’t account for ethics.
Comment on New ATHEIST community.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 week agoMaybe. But the scientific method and logic are provably functional. You see a thing, you replicate the thing, you can then do more things.
So it’s not a huge stretch to say that getting people to follow those methods is an improvement.
the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Is it though? Time and again it’s been shown that having a very wide basic genetic options is the healthiest for a species. Evolution favors adaptability.
Now if you’re talking about weeding out and genetic issues, diseases, and known problems, yes. We do that today.
the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Is it though? Time and again it’s been shown that having a very wide basic genetic options is the healthiest for a species. Evolution favors adaptability.
Depends what you select for. You could breed for intelligence, strength, etc and still maintain a diverse gene pool. Look what we’re done with dogs, ffs. It’s a scientifically valid practice. It doesn’t matter though because there’s no ethical way to do it.
Now if you’re talking about weeding out and genetic issues, diseases, and known problems, yes. We do that today.
Through gene therapy, yes. Eugenics implies selective breeding.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I’m looking at a pug right now. Uhhhhh…
It works if you know the traits you’re trying to optimize for and don’t care about the mistakes. We don’t know that for humans, and we do care.
I think you’re mistaking science for psychopathy. Proper science would recognize that humans are social creatures and therefore our actions have impact across society, and we need to take that into account.
Also, try and breed two very smart people. You rarely get a stable smarter person.
blarghly@lemmy.world 1 week ago
No one uses the scientific method in their day to day lives. This includes all scientists, and atheists. The rationalists tried this, and their conclusion was
(1) Psychological research shows that using heuristics is what we do 90% of the time. This is an evolutionary preference that is more or less baked in, as rational though requires much more time and energy.
(2) Using rational thought for day to day tasks or important life decisions is indistinguishable from the control - ie, giving a shit and trying.
(3) Even people dedicated to seeking truth as fully as possible are highly susceptible to cognitive biases. Eg, the placebo effect still works even when you know about the placebo effect and know you are taking a placebo.
(4) When people don’t take a moral stance to seek truth at the expense of their deepest beliefs, they tend to use rationality to reinforce their existing beliefs.
(5) Research shows that you change people’s minds by being friendly and supportive and showing that your worldview and lifestyle lead to good outcomes. Logical refutation of people’s beliefs tends to just make them dig their heels in more. This is why missionaries dig wells in impoverished nations.
(6) Communal/tribal ties are far stronger than logic. If everyone you know and identify with believes something, you will almost certainly also believe that thing, even if presented with clear evidence to the contrary.
(7) Religious people are perfectly capable of being intelligent and rational. There are many highly successful religious people, including in engineering and hard sciences. In fact, being religious seems to have numerous practical benefits in multiple aspects of life, from having a community to being more successful in your career to having a general sense of well being.
(8) Trying to form an identity around feelings of persecution for your not-religion was pretty cringy and we all regret it.