Alchemy -> chemistry
That's like saying modern cosmology is descended from Biblical cosmology, or that there's some connection between Gregor Mendel and a witch doctor who performs rituals to promise desired physical traits in a child. The line of descent isn't straightforward enough to be labeled an "evolution" (not even in the broad Darwinian sense of diverging populations). Outsiders
- often moreso than insiders (and at least in the case of anthropology/ethnology)- drive this change, not some natural progression within a field. Even when insiders are involved, outside progress (e.g., application of the scientific method, new developments in epistemology) drives change.
The quoted representation of the development implies a progress of
a field, when in reality it's often progress against
a(n existing) field, a rejection of a field's core assumptions (as was the case with physical anthropology and the somewhat related interest in "population health" that was deeply rooted in colonialism and imperialism). Unlike in evolutionary descent, the "indelible mark" of the pseudoscience continues to exist only outside
the field itself. Perhaps under the paradigm of modern science, you can draw a link between chemistry today and chemistry 50 years ago, but even there incorrect prevailing theories and ideologues often get driven out instead of built on top of. E.g., in biology, a shift toward the punctuated equilibrium model isn't at all a progression from the previous dominance of gradualism; instead, it's a development of new ideas that don't build on top of gradualists' work.
TL;DR: Modeling this as a continuity from pseudoscience to science mischaracterizes a replacement/rejection as a progression from within. Moreover, it suggests that a portion of the pseudoscience lives on in the modernized/professionalized science, when in reality the pseudoscience lives on instead in the lay public's misconceptions. And that's exactly what we're seeing when it comes to eugenics, trans-humanism, etc.
Pseudoscience fools the public, not (so much) the professional.
What is really insane is abortion. It's literally murder, and yet millions [billions] of people support it.
That's pretty off-topic here; you're either going to not get a response or just drive the thread away from the core discussion of modern support for eugenics. Maybe create a new thread if you want to discuss abortion?
Also, why is murder wrong? Does your justification against murder make some assumptions about [human] life? Do those assumptions extend to embryos and fetuses? What about intelligent (but biologically distinct) aliens? What about the brain dead? Is it wrong to terminate a human-like automaton that's alive and intelligent but not capable of meaningful experience? Is it even wrong to terminate a human that's seemingly alive and intelligent but not capable of meaningful experience, not aware of its own existence, and perhaps not even capable of processing emotion?
The broader your definition of "murder" gets, the harder it gets to argue that murder is wrong.
[Don't reply to the above on this thread. Continue the discussion elsewhere.]
Edited 6/13/2019 02:42:39