this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2026
29 points (100.0% liked)

Quotes

488 readers
1 users here now

Any good quotes from speeches, books, articles, etc

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The idea that politics could or should have any input into science is anathema to skeptics. They often bring out the examples of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, or the racial science of Nazi Germany, to illustrate the dangers of allowing science to be contaminated by political ideology. They less often acknowledge that racial science was not unique to Nazi Germany, and that the same kind of racist garbage was enthusiastically pursued by scientists in the most enlightened liberal democracies of the time, and found in all the standard British and American anthropology textbooks. Eugenics, including racial eugenics, wasn't just supported by Nazis, but by people who considered themselves among the vanguard of all that was good and progressive. Liberal democracy was no guard against the influence of political ideology on scientific thought. (On the contrary, liberal democracy is a political ideology that influences scientific thought.)

What's more, skeptics never acknowledge that racial science was defeated by political ideology, and not by science itself. In fact, there was nothing that could have defeated it within the empirical framework of racial scientists. Their racist experiments confirmed their racist hypotheses based on their racist observations. But while the science supported them, politics, in the aftermath of World War 2 and the Holocaust, did not. After 1945, racial science became politically unacceptable in western liberal democracies, and remains so in spite of the various attempts to revive it. It was not disproved by the scientific method; instead, the political ideologies behind racial science were discarded, and replaced by new ones that did not accommodate it.

You can read the full post HERE.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Thanks. Epigenetics and its importance in expression / penetrance is understood. One does not need to go as far to show a paper on its influence on agriculture to consider this. The DNA in say one's hepatoctye (liver cell) may be the same as in their cardiac myocyte (heart cell) but the expression of those genetics is clearly different; one has to consider "switches" of not just what genes are expressed but the degree of expression.

I thought the contention with the Lysenkoism is that it rejected strict mendelian inheritance of what is now known as gene expression which epigenetics has shown is correct (ie epigenetics shows the dialectical nature of phenotypes as opposed to the positivist approach previously held)? Not that it "rejects" genetics as per western framing.