Re:An open letter on E.O. Wilson's legacy
by slibhb on Wednesday January 19, 2022 @11:44AM
(#29996051)
I agree with you. But if this isn't a scientific debate, why would it matter that Gould et al are "distinguished scientists at Harvard"? Shouldn't they separate their political-philosophical-religious views from their work as scientists?
It isn't fruitful when one side is arguing science and the other is arguing politics.
Re:An open letter on E.O. Wilson's legacy
by PaulDavisThe1st on Wednesday January 19, 2022 @12:08PM
(#29996444)
Being able to state with some level of authority that current science does or does not support some claim can be useful even in the context of a non-scientific debate.
Since racism is itself not a scientific concept, arguments about this sort of thing are inherently never going to be scientific, but rather always political/philosophical. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Gould, Lewontin (or Wilson) engaging in such debates, which are as at least as important (and possibly more directly impactful) than the scientific ones.
Political/philosophical debates do not involve questions of demonstrable "right" or "wrong", but rather are a stage for beliefs about the world and different notions of utility. You don't settle them by "demonstrating why it's wrong", or by "offering a better idea".