Agree with everything here Noah, except one tiny thing: not sure what relevance the Darwin point has. Seems like an appeal to authority to me. I think I get what you're going for though, a point of rhetoric?
One other thing: I'm not sure the distinction between ontological statements derived using the scientific method and moral ones is a clearcut as either side makes out, but that's one for another day.
My point regarding Darwin was that just because something could "animate biological conceptions of racial superiority”, doesn't mean scholars shouldn't do it. Would the Social Science Genetics Association Consortium advise against reading Darwin? I assume not.
I get that. I just wonder where the ethical argument goes if we assume intent to animate biological conceptions of racial superiority, which I imagine is how a lot of these people conceive of Darwin's writing.
That's partly why I wonder if biting the bullet on the is/ought divide is a better argument. A higher IQ doesn't automatically make you superior to me, but, ceteris paribus, how the hell does it not?
Cargo cult of science
Agree with everything here Noah, except one tiny thing: not sure what relevance the Darwin point has. Seems like an appeal to authority to me. I think I get what you're going for though, a point of rhetoric?
One other thing: I'm not sure the distinction between ontological statements derived using the scientific method and moral ones is a clearcut as either side makes out, but that's one for another day.
My point regarding Darwin was that just because something could "animate biological conceptions of racial superiority”, doesn't mean scholars shouldn't do it. Would the Social Science Genetics Association Consortium advise against reading Darwin? I assume not.
I get that. I just wonder where the ethical argument goes if we assume intent to animate biological conceptions of racial superiority, which I imagine is how a lot of these people conceive of Darwin's writing.
That's partly why I wonder if biting the bullet on the is/ought divide is a better argument. A higher IQ doesn't automatically make you superior to me, but, ceteris paribus, how the hell does it not?