Darwins view on disabilities

[David T]

First this is not a debate about scientific evolution. So dont go there. Go away.

I am curious about that fallacy of objectivity that some say science holds! There is zero here and to be honest its a view Donald Trump would embrace. Why do we develop that idea science is objective? Based on scientific emperical evidence otherwise? .

"Darwin conceived of people with mental retardation as evolutionary mistakes. He speculated
that mental retardation resulted from reversions in the developmental process. From his
perspective persons with mental retardation displayed the characteristics of other species and
what he considered to be inferior races of human beings. They had reverted to these life forms
even though they were born to parents of a superior level of evolutionary development. For
reasons that were not clear to him, something had caused an error in reproduction that resulted in
an individual who looked and behaved like a member of an inferior species.
A similar concept was developed by J. Langdon Down in his theory of the racial nature of
mental retardation. Darwin's influence is very evident in Down's observations on what was to
become known as Down syndrome and that he termed mongolian idiocy. In his "Observations on
an Ethnic Classification of Idiots,"

 

[Revoltingest]

Why is objectivity a fallacy?

 

[Mindmaster]

First this is not a debate about scientific evolution. So dont go there. Go away.

I am curious about that fallacy of objectivity that some say science holds! There is zero here and to be honest its a view Donald Trump would embrace. Why do we develop that idea science is objective? Based on scientific emperical evidence otherwise? .

"Darwin conceived of people with mental retardation as evolutionary mistakes. He speculated
that mental retardation resulted from reversions in the developmental process. From his
perspective persons with mental retardation displayed the characteristics of other species and
what he considered to be inferior races of human beings. They had reverted to these life forms
even though they were born to parents of a superior level of evolutionary development. For
reasons that were not clear to him, something had caused an error in reproduction that resulted in
an individual who looked and behaved like a member of an inferior species.
A similar concept was developed by J. Langdon Down in his theory of the racial nature of
mental retardation. Darwin's influence is very evident in Down's observations on what was to
become known as Down syndrome and that he termed mongolian idiocy. In his "Observations on
an Ethnic Classification of Idiots,"

The man was from a time when zero ****s were given about your feelings.

Likewise, per his contemporaries his commentary is pretty nominal for the period. It's rather unfair to inject our modern understandings or interpretations into his words.

 

[siti]

@David T , the thing about this is that what you have quoted is not science...it is opinion. Science does not have opinions, scientists do. Science is a process of discovery, it is objective because it is not based on opinion, it is based on observation by many observers. The fact that scientists have opinions that turn out to be wrong, or even opinions that are flat out absurd, does not invalidate scientific objectivity - it just means that scientists are human beings - and we already knew that - didn't we?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

First this is not a debate about scientific evolution. So dont go there. Go away.

That's great, gotta love it!

 

[David T]

The man was from a time when zero ****s were given about your feelings.

Likewise, per his contemporaries his commentary is pretty nominal for the period. It's rather unfair to inject our modern understandings or interpretations into his words.

I think its clear that what can be seen as "scientific obectivity" isnt. Ironically i am pretty sure lots of mums dragging their pitiful worthless little retard kids to church with full love regardless.such folk probably were offended by darwin and such talk. Might have played a role in miscommunication between what is science and what is religion.

We are never truely objective.

 

[David T]

Why is objectivity a fallacy?

The above not scientific or objective parading as such. So based on that you do in fact have a point a fantasy that is self contained based on its own reality can be objective. I stand corrected rev you again. And of course we see that here constantly. So what the hell was i thinking! If was an RF post before RF.

DAMN THE TARDIS I SEE IT.

 

[David T]

@David T , the thing about this is that what you have quoted is not science...it is opinion. Science does not have opinions, scientists do. Science is a process of discovery, it is objective because it is not based on opinion, it is based on observation by many observers. The fact that scientists have opinions that turn out to be wrong, or even opinions that are flat out absurd, does not invalidate scientific objectivity - it just means that scientists are human beings - and we already knew that - didn't we?

Oh i sm sorry there was whole program called eugenics so your crazy siti. It may not be science post awareness but its crap to cherry pick lible reading the bible. Suddenly we are using logiflex. Ya know what that is that is bending reality to fix my logic.

I am not sayimg i dont lime sciemce my job is pure science in apllication i am saying i dont run around convinced and pretending my job is reality. Its not.

Personally i love science i get annoyed its not philosophy its mechanics thats it nothing more. It says nothing beyond mechanics its not a world view about anything but that. I dont worship my tape measure and i dont appreciate others who do.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

First this is not a debate about scientific evolution. So dont go there. Go away.

I am curious about that fallacy of objectivity that some say science holds! There is zero here and to be honest its a view Donald Trump would embrace. Why do we develop that idea science is objective? Based on scientific emperical evidence otherwise? .

"Darwin conceived of people with mental retardation as evolutionary mistakes. He speculated
that mental retardation resulted from reversions in the developmental process. From his
perspective persons with mental retardation displayed the characteristics of other species and
what he considered to be inferior races of human beings. They had reverted to these life forms
even though they were born to parents of a superior level of evolutionary development. For
reasons that were not clear to him, something had caused an error in reproduction that resulted in
an individual who looked and behaved like a member of an inferior species.
A similar concept was developed by J. Langdon Down in his theory of the racial nature of
mental retardation. Darwin's influence is very evident in Down's observations on what was to
become known as Down syndrome and that he termed mongolian idiocy. In his "Observations on
an Ethnic Classification of Idiots,"

Darwin was a racist but in the very broad sense of the term "racist".

 

[The Reverend Bob]

It's rather unfair to inject our modern understandings or interpretations into his words.

**** them and their Victorian mores. If they have any complaints with us judging those backwards cretins let them take it up with the man until then they can shut their mouth.

 

[David T]

Darwin was a racist but in the very broad sense of the term "racist".

So he hated everyone!!! Well based on that me too! Lol ijk but dont tell the kiddies!

 

[David T]

**** them and their Victorian mores. If they have any complaints with us judging those backwards cretins let them take it up with the man until then they can shut their mouth.

Oh that i loved that logic! Logic is fun!

 

[The Reverend Bob]

So he hated everyone!!! Well based on that me too! Lol ijk but dont tell the kiddies!

He thought that being a cabbage was a race.

 

[David T]

He thought that being a cabbage was a race.

Its not?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Its not?

I cabbages are pretty racists themselves against onions

 

[lewisnotmiller]

First this is not a debate about scientific evolution. So dont go there. Go away.

I am curious about that fallacy of objectivity that some say science holds! There is zero here and to be honest its a view Donald Trump would embrace. Why do we develop that idea science is objective? Based on scientific emperical evidence otherwise? .

"Darwin conceived of people with mental retardation as evolutionary mistakes. He speculated
that mental retardation resulted from reversions in the developmental process. From his
perspective persons with mental retardation displayed the characteristics of other species and
what he considered to be inferior races of human beings. They had reverted to these life forms
even though they were born to parents of a superior level of evolutionary development. For
reasons that were not clear to him, something had caused an error in reproduction that resulted in
an individual who looked and behaved like a member of an inferior species.
A similar concept was developed by J. Langdon Down in his theory of the racial nature of
mental retardation. Darwin's influence is very evident in Down's observations on what was to
become known as Down syndrome and that he termed mongolian idiocy. In his "Observations on
an Ethnic Classification of Idiots,"

Are you confusing science with a scientist? Darwin isn't science.

 

[siti]

Oh i sm sorry there was whole program called eugenics so your crazy siti. It may not be science post awareness but its crap to cherry pick lible reading the bible. Suddenly we are using logiflex. Ya know what that is that is bending reality to fix my logic.

I am not sayimg i dont lime sciemce my job is pure science in apllication i am saying i dont run around convinced and pretending my job is reality. Its not.

Personally i love science i get annoyed its not philosophy its mechanics thats it nothing more. It says nothing beyond mechanics its not a world view about anything but that. I dont worship my tape measure and i dont appreciate others who do.

Slow down George! I don't worship your tape measure either. And where on earth did you get the idea that I was suggesting science IS reality? Science is a process of discovery...sometimes even science gets it wrong...but it is also a self-correcting process - and that is because the process IS objective - it removes subjectivity by having many "tape measures" and comparing the results from a lot of them...eugenics didn't do that - it was a silly idea that never really had ANY corroborating data...it was an exercise in attempting to provide scientific-sounding support for an opinion - and that is true even of some of the people who engaged in "investigating" it didn't know that's what they were doing. The same thing happens today with creationism and ID. They are not science because they are setting out to prove an opinion and determinedly overlooking evidence to the contrary. Science does not do that even if some scientists do.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Are you confusing science with a scientist? Darwin isn't science.

Is there a science that studies science? I am curious

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is there a science that studies science? I am curious

Philosophy?

It is not scientology because that is the study of how to get money from rich actors.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Is there a science that studies science? I am curious

Metascience?