The post claims that it's fake and racist, which is probably correct.
But could you imagine a science that isn't fake but is racist? Does something being real prevent it from being racist? For instance, if there were some connections with your skull and some characteristic, would NPR and the scientific community embrace it?
I think it's a mistake to argue that this kind of thing is both fake and racist, not because it's not fake. But I could imagine a world in which some science could be real and racist. In that case, you'd have to deny reality so it fits your world view. How could science and the laws of the universe not fit my 2025 view of race and culture??
I think its enough to say it's racist and we shouldn't pursue this field of research because of it's morally reprehensible. Consider something like the science behind creating human-animal chimeras. Even if it were real it would still be morally reprehensible.
I think the idea is that racism relies on a scientist's personal agenda, in your case. It is not racist to say "black people have higher rates of sickle cell anemia", it's a statistic. Having reproducible statistics can never be "racist" in my opinion, even if it hurts people's sensibilities. Interpreting statistics as biased because they offend you is akin to calling people I don't like "Nazis"
Can we get all statistics? About everything? Rethorical questions.
Not everything in research is about bias. Somewhere there is a choice on what to research. That choice can reveal prejudice or a conflict of interests.
I think the problem is social tendency toward exaggeration and categorization. There are different social groups that have different but overlapping bell curves and whether it is nature or nurture is scientifically interesting, but dwelling on it all that much tends to get people hiring, marrying, grading, etc, based on the group instead of realizing a particular person will be somewhere on the curve and then kind of rewriting all of reality to fit the assumption that they really are nearer the average in their group than pesky reality keeps demonstrating.
Something about this new iteration of phrenology seems more insidious. It allows researchers to avoid having to make actual claims about relationships between structure and outcome. Instead the buck is passed to the models. The scientists are free to just report their model accuracy and leave the conclusion of the validity of the connection to the reader. This is very abuseable too as bad methods can easily create convincing results that support a desired narrative. Oh well just another thing to worry about in the future.
If I were to design a satire then it would be quite close to that. Company seems dead, but looks like it was around for a few years. Ridiculous such garbage was around in the first place and raised any amount of funds. I've seen plenty of garbage companies with garbage premises over the years, but this takes the cake.
Readit News
But could you imagine a science that isn't fake but is racist? Does something being real prevent it from being racist? For instance, if there were some connections with your skull and some characteristic, would NPR and the scientific community embrace it?
I think it's a mistake to argue that this kind of thing is both fake and racist, not because it's not fake. But I could imagine a world in which some science could be real and racist. In that case, you'd have to deny reality so it fits your world view. How could science and the laws of the universe not fit my 2025 view of race and culture??
I think its enough to say it's racist and we shouldn't pursue this field of research because of it's morally reprehensible. Consider something like the science behind creating human-animal chimeras. Even if it were real it would still be morally reprehensible.
I was with you up until this point. I think we should fight against this research because it's fake, not because it may be racist.
Deleted Comment
Not everything in research is about bias. Somewhere there is a choice on what to research. That choice can reveal prejudice or a conflict of interests.
Something about this new iteration of phrenology seems more insidious. It allows researchers to avoid having to make actual claims about relationships between structure and outcome. Instead the buck is passed to the models. The scientists are free to just report their model accuracy and leave the conclusion of the validity of the connection to the reader. This is very abuseable too as bad methods can easily create convincing results that support a desired narrative. Oh well just another thing to worry about in the future.
If I were to design a satire then it would be quite close to that. Company seems dead, but looks like it was around for a few years. Ridiculous such garbage was around in the first place and raised any amount of funds. I've seen plenty of garbage companies with garbage premises over the years, but this takes the cake.
Deleted Comment