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.

  • cfgaussian
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    This is a very good observation. Science alone cannot self-correct if the scientific field itself is inextricably tied to politics and ideology. Racial “science” is one example of this, but so is economics, and so is history. Most scientific fields are not math or physics, where it is possible to see them as entirely separate from the political realm. Any discipline that studies anything where a human element is involved is inevitably going to have a political-ideological element embedded in it.

    Even Marxism which is the most solidly scientific and empirical out of all the economic theories did not emerge out of purely sterile and academic scientific studies conducted in a political vacuum. It emerged on a background of ongoing class struggles and profound changes in society, in the way society was organized and in the way that people thought of themselves and their relationship to society, the economy, the state, etc. Social science reflects rather than drives changes in society.

  • darkernations
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    Thanks for the share!

    1. Lysenkoism has been vindicated (epigenetics).
    2. Claiming political neutrality is just submission to the dominant one.
    3. Racism is still widespread in science today
    • ComradeSalad
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      18 days ago

      Lysenko’s claims are in no way vindicated by epigenetics and that is a blatant misunderstanding of Lysenko’s thesis and how epigenetics function.

      Lysenko’s fundamental claim was that genes do not exist, and that heredity was not based on any specific dedicated molecular mechanism within a given organism. Instead, the argument was that traits could spontaneously be developed in previous generations of an organism and passed down to subsequent generations without mediation. Epigenetics is merely a form of gene expression. Genes that already existed within the organism and were merely expressed as a result of environmental factors “reawakening” dormant genes, or evolution favoring certain individuals within a population who expressed certain traits or held the capacity to.

      https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(25)00506-9

      Here is a Chinese article demonstrating the usage of epigenetics to influence cold resistance within rice crops. Notice how the study both upholds the existence of genes and provides direct evidence of genes functioning as the dedicated molecular mechanism of heredity traits. The fact that environmental stimuli influence gene expression does not in any capacity uphold the Lamarckist claim that genes do not exist.

      • darkernations
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        17 days 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.