If an organization is "in the X business" just because data it produces could, by some third party, be used to justify X, isn't funding something could cause Y an even stronger connection? Yet NIH funded viral research in Wuhan, increasing the risk of a global pandemic.
It's looking more and more like genetic engineering is the only viable way to close racial SES gaps. Ironically, the NIH is fighting to preserve racial inequalities while proclaiming its intent to narrow them.
Bernd
Fighting algorithmic racism like John Henry
Evinceo 1yr ago
Yes, we all know how you think science should work at this point. If all the expensive data collection is just used to launder arbitrary moral decrees, wouldn't reading seabird entrails work just as well for a fraction of the cost?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't think that NIH wants to be in the Eugenics business, so they're taking steps to avoid it.
If you're not in the Eugenics business, you're in the Dysgenics business. You don't get to not play the game.
Yeah you do, it's called Natural Selection.
More options
Context Copy link
If you are not the one deciding what genes are "good" and what are "bad", you are in the game, but as a ball, not as player or referee.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If an organization is "in the X business" just because data it produces could, by some third party, be used to justify X, isn't funding something could cause Y an even stronger connection? Yet NIH funded viral research in Wuhan, increasing the risk of a global pandemic.
You could broadly say that NIH wants to be in the germs business but not the make people smarter business.
It's looking more and more like genetic engineering is the only viable way to close racial SES gaps. Ironically, the NIH is fighting to preserve racial inequalities while proclaiming its intent to narrow them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, we all know how you think science should work at this point. If all the expensive data collection is just used to launder arbitrary moral decrees, wouldn't reading seabird entrails work just as well for a fraction of the cost?
Me in particular, or just people who aren't HBD enthusiasts?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link