the jews were largely transported from central europe to Palestine and America from 1933 to 1939 which was prior to WW2. By June of 1939 only 2.2 million jews remained in all of central europe of which 2.1 million survived WW2. Jewish leaders and Hitler signed the "transfer agreement" in 1933 which began the deporation of 1.2 million jews to Palestine and 8 million jews to America during the 1930s. The "final solution" was the deportation agenda and not any sort of extermination agenda.
The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - Adolf Hitler, creationist, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x
The Holocaust had nothing to do with evolution or evolutionary theory.
Hitler killed the Jews for deeply psychological reasons, revolving around his belief that Jews were unwilling to sacrifice themselves in battle (as the "Ayran" was). Since German soldiers were dying in massive numbers in war, Hitler felt that Jews had to die too to "balance things out."
See my book, "NATIONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL: Hitler, the Holocaust and War."
No mistake about it the jews didn't invent the holocaust lies at the close of WWII to try to make the world a better more humane place to inhabit. The jews invented the holocaust lies to try to steal the world blind thru dispossession and reparations. Also the lies were designed to slander the reputation of Germans and weaken them thru destroying their splendid cultural heritage. The reasons were the very same ones as when the jews invented the "exodus" lies long before to slander Egyptians.
I think this whole subject is victim to way to much detail, there is no way in any way shape or form the holocaust can be seen as natural selection, the holocaust was choice, not neccesity, therefore it is literally nothing like evolution. anyone who compares the two should be taken to aushwitz, locked up and given some 'evolution time'
Great post. You know I never thought about it that way, but when people here in the U.S. say stupid things like "Christianity is the majority so we clearly should make laws to represent what we believe" and follow it up with worse "hey it's natural selection... Isn't that what you believe in!" Sad it is so emphatically wrong yet I have heard this argument. Thanks for posting this vid.
"No, why don't you create a reply video instead like I've asked."
Because I decided not to do that. And now you've decided that the second option is one you won't allow on your message board. Which is fine. So how about a third option?
No, that's also not my choice. I have a couple of choices, not that many really. One is to not make a reply video. The other is a negative one in response to your patronizing "Bye then." You'll have a new message in your mailbox in a minute.
mnmcounts, I've banned you for spamming, first this comment section, then my inbox, after I explicitly told you I don't appreciate that. You can create a reply video if you want to voice your opinion, it's no longer welcome here.
"So now I'm ready to move on to a little more history"
You still haven't backed up your claim that there was a scientific consensus. You've quoted one text that says a majority of US textbook mentioned eugenetics. That does not show consensus.
Why don't you make a reply video instead of spamming this comment section? I'd hate to have to ban you.
"It is the function of public school science textbooks to present hypotheses and theories that have been extensively tested and are generally accepted in science."
Terry C. Maxwell, Ph.D., is a biology professor at Angelo State University. People like him care about making sure textbooks actually do this. And when people try to take it in another direction, you hear from them.
"It is the function of public school science textbooks to present hypotheses and theories that have been extensively tested and are generally accepted in science."
Terry C. Maxwell, Ph.D., is a biology professor at Angelo State University"
Too bad they don't always do that in practice, as my examples have shown.
Keep appealing to authority when I've shown your claims to be wrong, please. It's hilarious.
"Too bad they don't always do that in practice, as my examples have shown."
You know, scientific consensus does not in any way imply that every single scientist holds to exactly the same theory on everything. I'm sure you know that. I'm sure it also makes sense to you that the state of science textbooks would be much the same as the scientific consensus. Do you see what that looks like?
I really didn't mean to imply that every single science textbook is exactly the same, as if the scientific consensus is some sort of law they have to abide by. It is the primary influencing factor, though, and everyone knows it's what you judge a textbook's quality by. It also causes there to be a sort of consensus among textbooks- mirroring that of the scientific community.
Now, are you trying to imply that the scientific consensus has absolutely no impact on the content of science textbooks?
"I really didn't mean to imply that every single science textbook is exactly the same, as if the scientific consensus is some sort of law they have to abide by"
You said, when I asked you to show me that there was a consensus, that the fact that it was in the textbooks showed there was a consensus. I showed that claim to have no merit.
"everyone knows"
That's not an argument, it's another bullshit claim.
You know, scientific consensus does not in any way imply that every single scientist holds to exactly the same theory on everything. I'm sure you know that. I'm sure it also makes sense to you that the state of science textbooks would be much the same as the scientific consensus. Do you see what that looks like?"
You're babbling now. I've shown you, using examples, that your assertion that textbooks represent the consensus is false. Your irrelevant statement doesn't change that fact.
"I've shown you, using examples, that your assertion that textbooks represent the consensus is false"
You've shown examples from individual textbooks. The content of textbooks as a whole does represent the scientific consensus, unless censored. The natural course of action is for textbooks, on average, as a collective group to tend to reflect the scientific consensus on all matters of science because that's what's in their own best interest.
Which is all that's needed to show your claim wrong.
"The content of textbooks as a whole does represent the scientific consensus, unless censored"
No, it does not, as I've shown using examples.
"The natural course of action is for textbooks, on average, as a collective group to tend to reflect the scientific consensus on all matters of science because that's what's in their own best interest"
Another thing, universities offering courses in homeopathy and acupuncture shows that the fact that there's a course doesn't suggest the subject is backed up by the scientific consensus, since that's not the case for either homeopathy or acupuncture.
Textbooks are usually not written by scientists, aren't peer reviewed in any way, but you keep claiming they represent the scientific consensus, even though I keep presenting examples where this is clearly not the case.
So it makes sense that the people writing them wouldn't be doing independent research and figuring out for themselves what goes in them. In fact, they only have one valid option for how to figure out what they're going to put in a textbook- particularly when they have to update it and make sure the new changes actually reflect the reality of the scientific community. Guess what that one valid option is.
"The Holt writers have gone to unprecedented lengths to attack rationality and to undermine the student's ability to think rationally about biomedical matters"
So they get slammed and most people realize they aren't good books to use. The publishers either revise their material so it better fits the scientific consensus or people use other material that better fits the scientific consensus. It works this way because the scientific consensus matters.
"No, what's in the books does not represent the scientific consensus"
What else would it represent? The purpose of a science textbook is to teach science. The only way to do this well is to look to the hypotheses and theories that have been extensively tested and are generally accepted in science. When people do this, they make good textbooks. When they don't, people do their best to stop them. Poor material is identified as such and doesn't last long.
"Let me acknowledge that Holt Health is not the first health text to be written by charlatans, nor is it the first to use falsity, unsupported claims and doubletalk to sell superstition and quackery. But I cannot recall any earlier textbook that endorsed the utterly nonsensical notions that are promoted in Holt Health, nor can I recall any earlier book that tried so hard to confuse and deceive the student" (cont)
"The Holt writers have gone to unprecedented lengths to attack rationality and to undermine the student's ability to think rationally about biomedical matters"
Sure doesn't sound like something that represents the scientific consensus to me.
Just a little heads up: my next region of focus is going to be on the debate between Mendelism and the biometric school. Mendelism was "rediscovered" in the early twentieth century, and it became the minority opinion in the scientific community until it finally asserted itself as the dominant theory in the early 1930's. Over the course of about 10 years, Mendelism became part of the modern evolutionary synthesis. But I'm focusing on the earlier part of the 20th century- like I've been doing.
How does new science actually find its way into the scientific classroom? Science changes over time. Scientific textbooks are constantly rewritten. New discoveries get in them time after time after time. In fact, as many of you know, the end of the initial phase of the Human Genome Project has just been announced by Celera and by the National Institutes of Health. That announcement, I assure you, is going right into every textbook that every author is in the process of writing or imagining.
So how does new science get into the textbook? The answer is, it gets in by winning the scientific consensus. When you decide what should be presented in the classroom, what you want to present in terms of astronomy or earth science or chemistry, is the scientific consensus on a point of view. That consensus should never be taught dogmatically; it should always be taught as tentative and subject to revision, because all science, including evolution, is tentative and subject to revision.
But the fact of the matter is the way these new things get in is not by an act of Congress, not by an act of the state legislature, not even by an act of the state board of education. Rather, they get into the classroom, into the curriculum, and into textbooks by winning the battle for the scientific consensus.
"So how does new science get into the textbook? The answer is, it gets in by winning the scientific consensus"
How does pseudo-science get into textbooks? The authors put it there. Because of grants from the Pioneer Fund, political pressure, religious preconceptions, etc.
Again, back up your claim that high school textbooks represent the scientific consensus.
"Again, back up your claim that high school textbooks represent the scientific consensus."
You do realize the last few posts of mine aren't really my own words, right? I'm throwing quotes up from a scientist who's talking about ID, evolution, and the content of science textbooks. This is what you would call backing it up.
"You do realize the last few posts of mine aren't really my own words, right?"
That doesn't change the fact that you still haven't substantiated your claim, my dear. Back up your claim that textbooks reflect the scientific consensus.
"I'm throwing quotes up from a scientist who's talking about ID, evolution, and the content of science textbooks"
"You do realize the last few posts of mine aren't really my own words, right? "
You do realise that your posts don't actually back up your claims, don't you? Saying how science gets into textbooks isn't evidence that textbooks reflect scientific consensus.
"Saying how science gets into textbooks isn't evidence that textbooks reflect scientific consensus."
It is evidence that science textbooks should reflect the scientific consensus, that scientists work to make it this way, and that this is what actually happens because authors know that good content is content that reflects the scientific consensus and poor content is that which does not.
Elsewhere in this article, which primarily deals with ID and science textbooks, the author tells the ID people their best bet for actually getting their stuff into science textbooks is to change the scientific consensus instead of doing the things they've been doing- political pressure, religious preconceptions, etc. He's right. That stuff doesn't work, and it hasn't been working for them. They do need to change the scientific consensus in order to meet their goals, because that's what matters.
"I'm throwing quotes up from a scientist who's talking about ID, evolution, and the content of science textbooks. This is what you would call backing it up"
No, the quotes don't actually back you up at all. There ARE high school science textbooks that promote ID (like Of Pandas And People, made famous through the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial).
How about global warming? While there is a list of scientists representing a dissenting minority, the scientific consensus is that the temperature on Earth is rising, it is due to human activity, and it will continue to do so in the future. When science textbooks say something about global warming, they are obviously written according to the current scientific consensus. What else would they say? If it's written using old material, it might say something out of date. That's about it.
Here's another example: Plate tectonics. It is now presented as legit science because that is what the scientific consensus now is. It had its roots in fringe science, though, and for decades was regarded as such. Once the scientific community came to its current consensus, it began being included in science textbooks as legit science. The publishers had to take their cues from the scientific community like they always do, and state censorship was not a relevant factor- like usual.
"Why do you think things like Galileo's laws, Kepler's laws, and Newton's laws are included in science textbooks?"
Well, I think they're included because these laws were submitted by scientists to the scientific community, and the consensus was that these things were useful and important to science as a whole. That is what the consensus continues to be, and so they continue to be presented as useful scientific sorts of things.
"Well, I think they're included because these laws were submitted by scientists to the scientific community, and the consensus was that these things were useful and important to science as a whole"
That would only make sense in a history of science class.
"That is what the consensus continues to be"
Please, keep proving that you have either no clue what scientific consensus means, or that you're merely equivocating.
Funny how you refuse to answer my questions and would rather answer your own. Pretty much shows I was correct in saying you're arguing from presuppositions, and that you just want your claims to be true, instead of backing them up with evidence.
So do you feel that eugenics as legitimate science made it into all the science textbooks in the early 20th century as a result of state laws? If so, can you demonstrate that?
"So do you feel that eugenics as legitimate science made it into all the science textbooks in the early 20th century as a result of state laws?"
I was addressing your claim that science textbooks represent the scientific consensus. Stick to the subject, please. Present evidence that your claim is not without merit, please.
"I was addressing your claim that science textbooks represent the scientific consensus"
Something you yourself argued against just a moment ago, I should add, by saying they rely on previous textbooks, and, as a result, tend to be outdated. This is true now, even more so almost 100 years ago.
The subject is eugenics' presence in science textbooks in the early 20th century presented as legit science. You went off track a little talking about the Scopes trial and censorship of science textbooks. I was assuming you would bring this back to eugenics and make a relevant statement about it.
More evidence that textbooks don't conform to the scientific consensus. Here's what Texas law used to say about high school biology textbooks. This is from the Texas Textbook Proclamation: (cont)
1.3 Textbooks that treat the theory of evolution should identify it as only one of several explanations of the origins of humankind and avoid limiting young people in their search for meanings of their human existence.
(1) Textbooks presented for adoption which treat the subject of evolution substantively in explaining the historical origins of humankind shall be edited , if necessary, to clarify that the treatment is theoretical rather than factually verifiable. Furthermore, each textbook must carry a statement on an introductory page that any material on evolution included in the book is clearly presented as theory rather than fact.
(2) Textbooks presented for adoption which do not treat evolution substantively as an instructional topic but make reference to evolution, indirectly or by implication, must be modified, if necessary, to ensure that the reference is clearly to a theory and not a verified fact. These books will not need to carry a statement on the introductory page. (3) The presentation of the theory of evolution should be done in a manner which is not detrimental to other theories of origin.
Texas is the second largest purchaser of textbooks in the US. They determine the content of textbooks in the entire US because publishers want to sell their books, and will try to comply with insane laws like this (virtually the same thing happened after the scopes trial).
Scientists don't determine the content of text books, publishers, and, indirectly, state laws, do.
"Scientists don't determine the content of text books, publishers, and, indirectly, state laws, do."
What do publishers put in science textbooks? Easy, science-related stuff. But what do they include? Well, that depends on what's deemed most relevant and accurate according to the current scientific consensus. You've brought up one instance where state lawmakers censored certain parts of science textbooks. That doesn't usually happen, and it's not the explanation for the topic we've been on.
"Scientists regularly complain about the abysmal state of science textbooks, in fact."
That's because science textbooks, like all other textbooks, tend to rely heavily on previous textbooks for their content. As a result, many "new" textbooks contain very old content that is not up to date with the current scientific consensus on a variety of topics. The same thing happens with history textbooks. Not math as much, though. But for science and history, yes.
"Why do you think things like Galileo's laws, Kepler's laws, and Newton's laws are included in science textbooks? "
You're ignoring the content of my post. Please, provide evidence that science textbooks represent the scientific consensus. You're welcome to provide more evidence that you're wrong, like you just did, of course.
"The answer to the question is relevant to the content of your post"
No, it's not. Address the content of my post, please. I'm waiting for you to present evidence to back your claim that science textbooks represent the scientific consensus up. Your question doesn't relate to that matter at all.
"That's not a scientific consensus you dolt. Do you even know what the term means?"
Name-calling is not nice. Or mature. The term refers to the collective judgment, position, or opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. The content of whatever the scientific consensus is on a matter is what governs the content of science textbooks. You've brought up an interesting case where the US gov't censored textbooks, so they had to come up with a different consensus...tbc
However, the gov't censorship that happened post-Scopes is not relevant to anything that happened in the earlier part of the 20th century. During that time, and all other times outside of the post-Scopes era for that matter, the scientific community was free to express their collective consensuses in their textbooks. If there was a scientific consensus, it was expressed there as such. If not, well, it wasn't. No one forced them to do anything else, as was the case post-Scopes.
"It's an example that shows that your claims about textbooks showing consensus are nonsensical."
It's an example of how one time, government censorship caused the content of textbooks to deviate from the norm. The norm is for scientific consensus to determine what goes in a textbook, and that's what happened in the early 20th century. Government censorship didn't cause eugenics to be presented as real science in textbooks. The normal process of scientific consensus did.
"It's an example of how one time, government censorship caused the content of textbooks to deviate from the norm"
No, it wasn't government censorship, it was the people that wrote the textbooks that left it out.
"The norm is for scientific consensus to determine what goes in a textbook"
You were arguing the exact opposite a while ago, that textbooks determined consensus. And a lot of things make it into science textbooks that's not accepted by the scientific community.
"You've brought up an interesting case where the US gov't censored textbooks, so they had to come up with a different consensus"
No, that had NOTHING to do with consensus. The consensus was that evolution occured, the textbooks omitted it because of religious and judicial reasons. It had nothing to do with consensus at all.
"No, that had NOTHING to do with consensus. The consensus was that evolution occured"
As a result, that's what went in textbooks. When the government censored that material, they had to come up with a new consensus and present that within the rules that had been established. Once the censorship ended, the situation returned to normal and the content in science textbooks once again went according to what the complete scientific consensus was. How else do you think they would decide on content?
"If you don't want people to call you a dolt you shouldn't act like one."
That's called rationalizing. You're also trying to blame me for your own behavior. Demonstrate a little self-control and take responsibility for what you do.
"No, I'm not, I'm telling you that you're acting like an idiot, which will make people call you one"
In the exact same way that people who make statements that make it clear that they're Neo-nazis are called Neo-nazis. That's not name-calling, that's calling a spade a spade.
Yes you do. Your posts make it clear to be that you're just arguing from presuppositions. You want your claims to be true, but can't actually back them up.
"Don't blame me"
The blame is entirely yours. You make it clear that you're a dolt, don't blame others for calling you one.
"Again with the name-calling. It's unnecessary. Also embarrassing for you"
No, I'm just stating facts. Like calling a neo-nazi a neo-nazi.
"Post scopes trial US high school textbooks omitted evolution altogether. By your logic that would mean there was no scientific consensus.
Lol."
The consensus was that evolution was something to omit. Therefore, it was omitted. Later, the consensus was that evolution was something to teach exclusively. As a result...
Once again, the content of science textbooks is the consensus of the scientific community at that time. If you want to see what the consensus is, read the textbooks.
Exploring Biology (Harcourt, Brace, & Co.) and A Modern Biology (Henry, Holt, & Co.) are two more examples of multi-edition textbooks that retained eugenics as a legitimate science all the way into the '50's for one and the '60's for the other.
That's a ridiculous assertion. I certainly did. And you still haven't answered it. But that's because you know what the obvious answer is, and it's not a comfortable one for you. If y-e creationism, a pseudoscience, were presented in every scientific textbook as real science, this would require scientific consensus that is notably lacking. Since eugenics, another pseudoscience, was presented in this way, we know there was such a consensus in the scientific community.
By 1928, eugenics was a topic in 376 separate college courses, which enrolled approximately 20,000 students. A content analysis of high school science texts published between 1914 and 1948 indicates that a majority presented eugenics was as legitimate science. Selden, S., Eugenics popularization, ww wg enic sarc hiveorg/ht ml/eug enics/ess ay6text tml, 3 July 2006.
Not really sure how much I have to mangle a link to get it to post.
"I would regard scientists between 1880 and 1930 in the same way if there had been scientists who did anything meaningful against eugenics"
Hmm,religious people were promoting it just the same.
"A content analysis of high school science texts published between 1914 and 1948 indicates that a majority presented eugenics was as legitimate science"
And again, textbooks don't meanthere's a consensus.
I'll ask one more time, and this is all I want to know, deBeuk: What would you conclude about science as a whole if every science textbook began presenting y-e creationism as legitimate science? Answer this question.
"What would you conclude about science as a whole if every science textbook began presenting y-e creationism as legitimate science? Answer this question."
"These texts embraced Galton's concept of differential birthrates between the biological "fit" and "unfit," training high school students that immigration restriction, segregation, and sterilization were worthy policies to maintain in American culture"
Science doesn't advocate policies. You do know what science is, don't you?
"By 1928, eugenics was a topic in 376 separate college courses, which enrolled approximately 20,000 students. A content analysis of high school science texts published between 1914 and 1948 indicates that a majority presented eugenics was as legitimate science"
I notice how you left out the next sentence (according to the text containing that quote on the eugenics archive)
"While eugenics was indeed popular, it was poor science and it was rejected on scientific grounds".
i'll guive you a good example of eugenics in action, and motivated by what?? you got that right - RELIGION. Please check the armenian genocide to see how religion has made a much more practical use of that concept then scientists...
"motivated by what?? you got that right - RELIGION."
Did you read earlier comments? Some religious people support eugenics. Far more religious people opposed it- and them.
For your examples of social application, 1914 Model Eugenical Sterilization Law (regarding involuntary sterilization), and Buck v. Bell 1927 (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., presiding). That's an embarrassment for the justice system, just as it was for scientists or anyone else who supported the same thing.
For your examples of social application, 1914 Model Eugenical Sterilization Law (regarding involuntary sterilization), and Buck v. Bell 1927 (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., presiding).
Very good, two examples. Let's look at the numbers. Did scientific curiosity in eugenics claimed more victims then religious motivation, or historical precedents as the greek? No.
"Did scientific curiosity in eugenics claimed more victims"
I don't care. What I care about is the lack of opposition to this "scientific curiosity" from within the scientific community. I also care about the content of scientific textbooks, and prior to 1930- 3/4 of them prior to 1940- eugenics was presented as real science, a logical progression of Darwinism. Somewhat harmless when discussed among European philosophical elites, yes. More dangerous in a genetics textbook.
"And you don't care about the lack of moral indignation from withing parts of the religious community in the US at all. Gotcha."
Try to keep up, deBeuk. There is all kinds of moral indignation from within parts of the religious community regarding human rights and the preservation of life. There are some religious people who have supported eugenics, and at the same time, there were also religious people who displayed much moral indignation toward eugenics and its supporters.
I am keeping up. You blame one infinitesimally small part of society for not speaking up against eugenics, while giving another, arguably larger, part a free pass. All the while ignoring that eugenics had been practiced for millennia prior to the term itself being used.
"while giving another, arguably larger, part a free pass."
It's not a free pass. It's kudos for doing the right thing. Speak up against it, that is. Something done by prominent religious people in society at that time. So kudos to them.
"explain me what is the major difference between these two state sanctioned deaths?"
You seriously don't know? Are you stupid or something? A simple definition of each reveals that they are called different things b/c they are different things. Yes, they both involve killing...though in the case of state sanctioned eugenics, we're usually looking at sterilization rather than killing...hmmm, starting to see how there's some similarity but also a bit of a difference?
"isn't death penalty as repulsive concept as eugenics?"
I don't entirely agree with it, but no, it's not repulsive on the same level. If you view the two as being essentially the same thing, you must have something wrong with you. Maybe the same thing that's wrong with people who regard contraception or abortion as being repulsive at the same level as murder. Yea, that's what you sound like. I made the comparison.
If you view the two as being essentially the same thing, you must have something wrong with you. Maybe the same thing that's wrong with people who regard contraception or abortion as being repulsive at the same level as murder. Yea, that's what you sound like
No, eugenics and death penalty are abuse of the state power. abortion is personal freedom. and murder is the elimination of another individual's freedom...
"abortion is personal freedom. and murder is the elimination of another individual's freedom..."
Oh, now all of a sudden you can see the differences.
"No, eugenics and death penalty are abuse of the state power."
Unless you feel like focusing on a particular similarity and exclude all the differences. But hey, it's all based on what you feel like doing. If you want to do that...go for it.
That's exactly what the point is. See if you can highlight the similarities between eugenics and the death penalty but ignore the differences.
"excuse me? when did i mentioned abortion and murder? You did, with you childisch silogism"
LOL check spelling, please...it wasn't a childish syllogism, it was a relevant comparison. Like an analogy, if you will, between two sets of people and beliefs. A is to B as C is to D...that type of thing. It's fun.
"Ehm, what??? Part of the religious comminity giving a free pass to eugenics, quoting the bible to back it up, is a right thing???"
No, that was wrong. But I fully support G. K. Chesterton in quoting the Bible and speaking out against eugenics. He also wrote a book about it, in which he quoted the Bible at great length. Christianity had these kinds of people standing up against eugenics, and it was prior to 1920- not after 1930.
"But you give them a free pass. That was a /larger/ section of the population that scientists in general."
I would regard scientists between 1880 and 1930 in the same way if there had been scientists who did anything meaningful against eugenics. Stop calling it a free pass, because that's not what it is, and I know you're just calling it that to goad me.
Nooo, no, no. Not even close. Judicial support of eugenics is way more problematic than judicial support of the death penalty. How is the death penalty relevant, anyway?
1) that's not evidence that there was a consensus"
Yes it is. Y-e creationism is the most recent example of pseudoscience that wants to be taken seriously as real science, or at least the next best alternative. Because science as a whole rejects it as pseudoscience, that's the only mention it gets in textbooks. Eugenics was treated differently because science as a whole failed to reject what was a pseudoscience, and instead they regarded it as legit application of real science.
"Science as a whole never accepted it as science."
Apparently they did. And it's not b/c I say so- it's b/c the textbooks did.
"No, they didn't. It was an application of statistics, and not accepted as science at all. There was no scientific consensus."
So let the stats textbooks deal with it. Right? Wrong. The biology and genetics (classical genetics, Mendel type) textbooks also accepted it as acceptable application of science. They shouldn't have, but they did.
As far as the treatment of a pseudoscience as science...yes, it does require consensus for such a thing to happen, just as it would require a consensus for y-e creationism to be taught as science. Instead, there is a consensus in the opposing direction. That should have happened with regard to eugenics, but at that time, it did not.
Selective traditions and the science curriculum: Eugenics and the biology textbook, 1914-1949. Steven Selden.
"The biology and genetics (classical genetics, Mendel type) textbooks also accepted it as acceptable application of science"
Oh, I missed this one. Application of science, or actually, pseudo-science. Applications of science aren't science. Applications of science don't reflect on the scientific community. Science doesn't make an ought (ought to sterilise people with unwanted traits) out of an is.
the jews were largely transported from central europe to Palestine and America from 1933 to 1939 which was prior to WW2. By June of 1939 only 2.2 million jews remained in all of central europe of which 2.1 million survived WW2. Jewish leaders and Hitler signed the "transfer agreement" in 1933 which began the deporation of 1.2 million jews to Palestine and 8 million jews to America during the 1930s. The "final solution" was the deportation agenda and not any sort of extermination agenda.
NotAllGoyAreStupid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - Adolf Hitler, creationist, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
The Holocaust had nothing to do with evolution or evolutionary theory.
Hitler killed the Jews for deeply psychological reasons, revolving around his belief that Jews were unwilling to sacrifice themselves in battle (as the "Ayran" was). Since German soldiers were dying in massive numbers in war, Hitler felt that Jews had to die too to "balance things out."
See my book, "NATIONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL: Hitler, the Holocaust and War."
With regards,
Richard Koenigsberg
meihachan 1 year ago
Comment removed
JamesThWilliams 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No mistake about it the jews didn't invent the holocaust lies at the close of WWII to try to make the world a better more humane place to inhabit. The jews invented the holocaust lies to try to steal the world blind thru dispossession and reparations. Also the lies were designed to slander the reputation of Germans and weaken them thru destroying their splendid cultural heritage. The reasons were the very same ones as when the jews invented the "exodus" lies long before to slander Egyptians.
IfHeHadLived 2 years ago
I think this whole subject is victim to way to much detail, there is no way in any way shape or form the holocaust can be seen as natural selection, the holocaust was choice, not neccesity, therefore it is literally nothing like evolution. anyone who compares the two should be taken to aushwitz, locked up and given some 'evolution time'
daveqc1986 2 years ago
"there is no way in any way shape or form the holocaust can be seen as natural selection"
Of course not, it was artificial selection, something farmers had used for millennia.
deBeuk 2 years ago
riiiiight, you mean farmers with crops yeah?
daveqc1986 2 years ago
"riiiiight, you mean farmers with crops yeah?"
Yes, farmers with crops and cattle. Where do you think the terms "culling the herd" comes from?
deBeuk 2 years ago
Great post. You know I never thought about it that way, but when people here in the U.S. say stupid things like "Christianity is the majority so we clearly should make laws to represent what we believe" and follow it up with worse "hey it's natural selection... Isn't that what you believe in!" Sad it is so emphatically wrong yet I have heard this argument. Thanks for posting this vid.
x1tekja 3 years ago
Ok, I'll pm the material to you and write shorter comment on it. How's that?
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"Ok, I'll pm the material to you and write shorter comment on it. How's that?"
No, why don't you create a reply video instead like I've asked.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"No, why don't you create a reply video instead like I've asked."
Because I decided not to do that. And now you've decided that the second option is one you won't allow on your message board. Which is fine. So how about a third option?
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"Because I decided not to do that"
Your choice. Bye then. If you want to be deliberately obtuse you can go do that somewhere else.
"And now you've decided that the second option is one you won't allow on your message board"
I allow opinion, not spamming.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Bye then."
No, that's also not my choice. I have a couple of choices, not that many really. One is to not make a reply video. The other is a negative one in response to your patronizing "Bye then." You'll have a new message in your mailbox in a minute.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"No, that's also not my choice"
Then back up your claims.
"I have a couple of choices, not that many really"
And you don't want to make a reply video either. Seems like you're limiting yourself there.
"You'll have a new message in your mailbox in a minute"
I've told you I don't appreciate PMs. Who do you think you are again?
deBeuk 3 years ago
mnmcounts, I've banned you for spamming, first this comment section, then my inbox, after I explicitly told you I don't appreciate that. You can create a reply video if you want to voice your opinion, it's no longer welcome here.
deBeuk 3 years ago
Are you seriously deleting all my comments?
mmmcounts 3 years ago
I've asked you twice to create a reply video instead of spamming the comment section now.
deBeuk 3 years ago
Apart from asking you to back up your claim that textbooks show that there was a consensus, which you refuse to do for some reason.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"So now I'm ready to move on to a little more history"
You still haven't backed up your claim that there was a scientific consensus. You've quoted one text that says a majority of US textbook mentioned eugenetics. That does not show consensus.
Why don't you make a reply video instead of spamming this comment section? I'd hate to have to ban you.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"It is the function of public school science textbooks to present hypotheses and theories that have been extensively tested and are generally accepted in science."
Terry C. Maxwell, Ph.D., is a biology professor at Angelo State University. People like him care about making sure textbooks actually do this. And when people try to take it in another direction, you hear from them.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"It is the function of public school science textbooks to present hypotheses and theories that have been extensively tested and are generally accepted in science."
Terry C. Maxwell, Ph.D., is a biology professor at Angelo State University"
Too bad they don't always do that in practice, as my examples have shown.
Keep appealing to authority when I've shown your claims to be wrong, please. It's hilarious.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Too bad they don't always do that in practice, as my examples have shown."
You know, scientific consensus does not in any way imply that every single scientist holds to exactly the same theory on everything. I'm sure you know that. I'm sure it also makes sense to you that the state of science textbooks would be much the same as the scientific consensus. Do you see what that looks like?
mmmcounts 3 years ago
I really didn't mean to imply that every single science textbook is exactly the same, as if the scientific consensus is some sort of law they have to abide by. It is the primary influencing factor, though, and everyone knows it's what you judge a textbook's quality by. It also causes there to be a sort of consensus among textbooks- mirroring that of the scientific community.
Now, are you trying to imply that the scientific consensus has absolutely no impact on the content of science textbooks?
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"I really didn't mean to imply that every single science textbook is exactly the same, as if the scientific consensus is some sort of law they have to abide by"
You said, when I asked you to show me that there was a consensus, that the fact that it was in the textbooks showed there was a consensus. I showed that claim to have no merit.
"everyone knows"
That's not an argument, it's another bullshit claim.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Now, are you trying to imply that the scientific consensus has absolutely no impact on the content of science textbooks?"
Not as much as you want to suggest.
Now, please. Show me that there was a consensus regarding eugenics or stop bullshitting.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"
You know, scientific consensus does not in any way imply that every single scientist holds to exactly the same theory on everything. I'm sure you know that. I'm sure it also makes sense to you that the state of science textbooks would be much the same as the scientific consensus. Do you see what that looks like?"
You're babbling now. I've shown you, using examples, that your assertion that textbooks represent the consensus is false. Your irrelevant statement doesn't change that fact.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"I've shown you, using examples, that your assertion that textbooks represent the consensus is false"
You've shown examples from individual textbooks. The content of textbooks as a whole does represent the scientific consensus, unless censored. The natural course of action is for textbooks, on average, as a collective group to tend to reflect the scientific consensus on all matters of science because that's what's in their own best interest.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"You've shown examples from individual textbooks"
Which is all that's needed to show your claim wrong.
"The content of textbooks as a whole does represent the scientific consensus, unless censored"
No, it does not, as I've shown using examples.
"The natural course of action is for textbooks, on average, as a collective group to tend to reflect the scientific consensus on all matters of science because that's what's in their own best interest"
You're just repeating your unsubstantiated claim
deBeuk 3 years ago
Another thing, universities offering courses in homeopathy and acupuncture shows that the fact that there's a course doesn't suggest the subject is backed up by the scientific consensus, since that's not the case for either homeopathy or acupuncture.
deBeuk 3 years ago
Textbooks are usually not written by scientists, aren't peer reviewed in any way, but you keep claiming they represent the scientific consensus, even though I keep presenting examples where this is clearly not the case.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Textbooks are usually not written by scientists"
So it makes sense that the people writing them wouldn't be doing independent research and figuring out for themselves what goes in them. In fact, they only have one valid option for how to figure out what they're going to put in a textbook- particularly when they have to update it and make sure the new changes actually reflect the reality of the scientific community. Guess what that one valid option is.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"So it makes sense"
Again, not an argument, just an assertion.
"they have to update it and make sure the new changes actually reflect the reality of the scientific community"
And another one.
Stop bullshitting please, you're embarrassing yourself.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"The Holt writers have gone to unprecedented lengths to attack rationality and to undermine the student's ability to think rationally about biomedical matters"
So they get slammed and most people realize they aren't good books to use. The publishers either revise their material so it better fits the scientific consensus or people use other material that better fits the scientific consensus. It works this way because the scientific consensus matters.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"So they get slammed and most people realize they aren't good books to use"
No, what's in the books does not represent the scientific consensus, which shows your claim that the textbooks do that false.
"The publishers either revise their material so it better fits the scientific consensus"
And again you repeat the same unsubstantiated nonsense I keep showing to be false.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"No, what's in the books does not represent the scientific consensus"
What else would it represent? The purpose of a science textbook is to teach science. The only way to do this well is to look to the hypotheses and theories that have been extensively tested and are generally accepted in science. When people do this, they make good textbooks. When they don't, people do their best to stop them. Poor material is identified as such and doesn't last long.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"What else would it represent?"
Opinions, errors, etc, like I've shown.
"The purpose of a science textbook is to teach science"
Too bad they don't always do that, isn't it?
"The only way to do this well is to look to the hypotheses and theories that have been extensively tested and are generally accepted in science"
Again, I've shown examples that this isn't always the case, disproving your assertion that textbooks represent scientific consensus.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Poor material is identified"
Guess why eugenics isn't it the textbooks these days?
deBeuk 3 years ago
Here's a whole site discussing textbooks, and the false claims made in some of them. textbookleague . org/ttlindex . htm
deBeuk 3 years ago
Here's a nice quote from one review:
"Let me acknowledge that Holt Health is not the first health text to be written by charlatans, nor is it the first to use falsity, unsupported claims and doubletalk to sell superstition and quackery. But I cannot recall any earlier textbook that endorsed the utterly nonsensical notions that are promoted in Holt Health, nor can I recall any earlier book that tried so hard to confuse and deceive the student" (cont)
deBeuk 3 years ago
"The Holt writers have gone to unprecedented lengths to attack rationality and to undermine the student's ability to think rationally about biomedical matters"
Sure doesn't sound like something that represents the scientific consensus to me.
deBeuk 3 years ago
Just a little heads up: my next region of focus is going to be on the debate between Mendelism and the biometric school. Mendelism was "rediscovered" in the early twentieth century, and it became the minority opinion in the scientific community until it finally asserted itself as the dominant theory in the early 1930's. Over the course of about 10 years, Mendelism became part of the modern evolutionary synthesis. But I'm focusing on the earlier part of the 20th century- like I've been doing.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"Just a little heads up: my next region of focus is going to be on the debate between Mendelism and the biometric school"
I was expecting you to substantiate your claim that high school textbooks represented the scientific consensus. Are you EVER going to do that?
deBeuk 3 years ago
"my next region of focus is going to be on the debate between Mendelism and the biometric school"
I suggest you make a response video then.
deBeuk 3 years ago
How does new science actually find its way into the scientific classroom? Science changes over time. Scientific textbooks are constantly rewritten. New discoveries get in them time after time after time. In fact, as many of you know, the end of the initial phase of the Human Genome Project has just been announced by Celera and by the National Institutes of Health. That announcement, I assure you, is going right into every textbook that every author is in the process of writing or imagining.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
So how does new science get into the textbook? The answer is, it gets in by winning the scientific consensus. When you decide what should be presented in the classroom, what you want to present in terms of astronomy or earth science or chemistry, is the scientific consensus on a point of view. That consensus should never be taught dogmatically; it should always be taught as tentative and subject to revision, because all science, including evolution, is tentative and subject to revision.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
But the fact of the matter is the way these new things get in is not by an act of Congress, not by an act of the state legislature, not even by an act of the state board of education. Rather, they get into the classroom, into the curriculum, and into textbooks by winning the battle for the scientific consensus.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"they get into the classroom, into the curriculum, and into textbooks by winning the battle for the scientific consensus. "
Again the same unsubstantiated claim.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"So how does new science get into the textbook? The answer is, it gets in by winning the scientific consensus"
How does pseudo-science get into textbooks? The authors put it there. Because of grants from the Pioneer Fund, political pressure, religious preconceptions, etc.
Again, back up your claim that high school textbooks represent the scientific consensus.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"political pressure, religious preconceptions, etc."
And Nationalistic pride of course, like school kids in Turkey that are STILL being taught pseudo-history when it comes to the Armenian Holocaust.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Again, back up your claim that high school textbooks represent the scientific consensus."
You do realize the last few posts of mine aren't really my own words, right? I'm throwing quotes up from a scientist who's talking about ID, evolution, and the content of science textbooks. This is what you would call backing it up.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"You do realize the last few posts of mine aren't really my own words, right?"
That doesn't change the fact that you still haven't substantiated your claim, my dear. Back up your claim that textbooks reflect the scientific consensus.
"I'm throwing quotes up from a scientist who's talking about ID, evolution, and the content of science textbooks"
And?
"This is what you would call backing it up"
No, it isn't.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"You do realize the last few posts of mine aren't really my own words, right? "
You do realise that your posts don't actually back up your claims, don't you? Saying how science gets into textbooks isn't evidence that textbooks reflect scientific consensus.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Saying how science gets into textbooks isn't evidence that textbooks reflect scientific consensus."
It is evidence that science textbooks should reflect the scientific consensus, that scientists work to make it this way, and that this is what actually happens because authors know that good content is content that reflects the scientific consensus and poor content is that which does not.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
Elsewhere in this article, which primarily deals with ID and science textbooks, the author tells the ID people their best bet for actually getting their stuff into science textbooks is to change the scientific consensus instead of doing the things they've been doing- political pressure, religious preconceptions, etc. He's right. That stuff doesn't work, and it hasn't been working for them. They do need to change the scientific consensus in order to meet their goals, because that's what matters.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"the author tells the ID people their best bet for actually getting their stuff into science textbooks is to change the scientific consensus"
Funny, the author seems to suggest there are other ways of getting things in science textbooks there, doesn't he?
deBeuk 3 years ago
"It is evidence that science textbooks should reflect the scientific consensus"
And as I've shown using examples, that's not the case.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"I'm throwing quotes up from a scientist who's talking about ID, evolution, and the content of science textbooks. This is what you would call backing it up"
No, the quotes don't actually back you up at all. There ARE high school science textbooks that promote ID (like Of Pandas And People, made famous through the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial).
deBeuk 3 years ago
How about global warming? While there is a list of scientists representing a dissenting minority, the scientific consensus is that the temperature on Earth is rising, it is due to human activity, and it will continue to do so in the future. When science textbooks say something about global warming, they are obviously written according to the current scientific consensus. What else would they say? If it's written using old material, it might say something out of date. That's about it.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
Here's another example: Plate tectonics. It is now presented as legit science because that is what the scientific consensus now is. It had its roots in fringe science, though, and for decades was regarded as such. Once the scientific community came to its current consensus, it began being included in science textbooks as legit science. The publishers had to take their cues from the scientific community like they always do, and state censorship was not a relevant factor- like usual.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
Ok, I'll answer the question myself.
"Why do you think things like Galileo's laws, Kepler's laws, and Newton's laws are included in science textbooks?"
Well, I think they're included because these laws were submitted by scientists to the scientific community, and the consensus was that these things were useful and important to science as a whole. That is what the consensus continues to be, and so they continue to be presented as useful scientific sorts of things.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"Well, I think they're included because these laws were submitted by scientists to the scientific community, and the consensus was that these things were useful and important to science as a whole"
That would only make sense in a history of science class.
"That is what the consensus continues to be"
Please, keep proving that you have either no clue what scientific consensus means, or that you're merely equivocating.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Ok, I'll answer the question myself."
Funny how you refuse to answer my questions and would rather answer your own. Pretty much shows I was correct in saying you're arguing from presuppositions, and that you just want your claims to be true, instead of backing them up with evidence.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Why do you think things like Galileo's laws, Kepler's laws, and Newton's laws are included in science textbooks? "
mmmcounts 3 years ago
So do you feel that eugenics as legitimate science made it into all the science textbooks in the early 20th century as a result of state laws? If so, can you demonstrate that?
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"So do you feel that eugenics as legitimate science made it into all the science textbooks in the early 20th century as a result of state laws?"
I was addressing your claim that science textbooks represent the scientific consensus. Stick to the subject, please. Present evidence that your claim is not without merit, please.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"I was addressing your claim that science textbooks represent the scientific consensus"
Something you yourself argued against just a moment ago, I should add, by saying they rely on previous textbooks, and, as a result, tend to be outdated. This is true now, even more so almost 100 years ago.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Stick to the subject, please."
The subject is eugenics' presence in science textbooks in the early 20th century presented as legit science. You went off track a little talking about the Scopes trial and censorship of science textbooks. I was assuming you would bring this back to eugenics and make a relevant statement about it.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"The subject is eugenics' presence in science textbooks"
No, the subject was your claim that science textbooks represent the scientific consensus.
"You went off track a little talking about the Scopes trial and censorship of science textbooks"
No, I was showing how your aforementioned claim was without merit.
"I was assuming you would bring this back to eugenics and make a relevant statement about it. "
I was assuming you'd back your claims up with evidence. Alas...
deBeuk 3 years ago
"the subject was your claim that science textbooks represent the scientific consensus."
In the early 20th century. Concerning eugenics.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"In the early 20th century. Concerning eugenics. "
And again you shift goal posts. Not that it matters, you haven't backed that claim up with evidence either.
Again, how do science textbooks represent a scientific consensus on a social philosophy?
deBeuk 3 years ago
More evidence that textbooks don't conform to the scientific consensus. Here's what Texas law used to say about high school biology textbooks. This is from the Texas Textbook Proclamation: (cont)
deBeuk 3 years ago
1.3 Textbooks that treat the theory of evolution should identify it as only one of several explanations of the origins of humankind and avoid limiting young people in their search for meanings of their human existence.
(cont)
deBeuk 3 years ago
(1) Textbooks presented for adoption which treat the subject of evolution substantively in explaining the historical origins of humankind shall be edited , if necessary, to clarify that the treatment is theoretical rather than factually verifiable. Furthermore, each textbook must carry a statement on an introductory page that any material on evolution included in the book is clearly presented as theory rather than fact.
(cont)
deBeuk 3 years ago
(2) Textbooks presented for adoption which do not treat evolution substantively as an instructional topic but make reference to evolution, indirectly or by implication, must be modified, if necessary, to ensure that the reference is clearly to a theory and not a verified fact. These books will not need to carry a statement on the introductory page. (3) The presentation of the theory of evolution should be done in a manner which is not detrimental to other theories of origin.
deBeuk 3 years ago
Texas is the second largest purchaser of textbooks in the US. They determine the content of textbooks in the entire US because publishers want to sell their books, and will try to comply with insane laws like this (virtually the same thing happened after the scopes trial).
Scientists don't determine the content of text books, publishers, and, indirectly, state laws, do.
deBeuk 3 years ago
Now, please, show me evidence that your claim, that textbooks reflect the scientific consensus, is not without merit.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Scientists don't determine the content of text books, publishers, and, indirectly, state laws, do."
What do publishers put in science textbooks? Easy, science-related stuff. But what do they include? Well, that depends on what's deemed most relevant and accurate according to the current scientific consensus. You've brought up one instance where state lawmakers censored certain parts of science textbooks. That doesn't usually happen, and it's not the explanation for the topic we've been on.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"What do publishers put in science textbooks? Easy, science-related stuff."
You claimed they represented the scientific consensus. You're moving goal posts again.
"But what do they include? Well, that depends on what's deemed most relevant and accurate according to the current scientific consensus"
No, that's not always the case. Scientists regularly complain about the abysmal state of science textbooks, in fact.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Scientists regularly complain about the abysmal state of science textbooks, in fact."
That's because science textbooks, like all other textbooks, tend to rely heavily on previous textbooks for their content. As a result, many "new" textbooks contain very old content that is not up to date with the current scientific consensus on a variety of topics. The same thing happens with history textbooks. Not math as much, though. But for science and history, yes.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"That's because science textbooks, like all other textbooks, tend to rely heavily on previous textbooks for their content."
Whatever happened to them representing the scientific consensus, like you claimed they did?
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Whatever happened to them representing the scientific consensus, like you claimed they did?"
Old material represents the old consensus. Scientists would prefer that new material accurately reflects the current consensus.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"Old material represents the old consensus"
That's another claim, one that depends on a previous claim you haven't been able to substantiate.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"You've brought up one instance where state lawmakers censored certain parts of science textbooks"
Which shows your claim to be wrong.
"That doesn't usually happen"
It's been happening in the US with regards to evolutionary theory for over 80 years.
"and it's not the explanation for the topic we've been on"
It shows your claim to be without merit.
deBeuk 3 years ago
I'm still waiting for you to back your claim that science textbooks represent the scientific consensus up with actual evidence, mnm.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"I'm still waiting for you to back your claim that science textbooks represent the scientific consensus up with actual evidence, mnm."
Why do you think things like Galileo's laws, Kepler's laws, and Newton's laws are included in science textbooks?
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"Why do you think things like Galileo's laws, Kepler's laws, and Newton's laws are included in science textbooks? "
You're ignoring the content of my post. Please, provide evidence that science textbooks represent the scientific consensus. You're welcome to provide more evidence that you're wrong, like you just did, of course.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"You're ignoring the content of my post."
No I'm not. Answer the question.
"Why do you think things like Galileo's laws, Kepler's laws, and Newton's laws are included in science textbooks? "
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"No I'm not"
Yes, you are.
"Answer the question"
Why? You ignored the content of my post.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Why? You ignored the content of my post."
The answer to the question is relevant to the content of your post.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"The answer to the question is relevant to the content of your post"
No, it's not. Address the content of my post, please. I'm waiting for you to present evidence to back your claim that science textbooks represent the scientific consensus up. Your question doesn't relate to that matter at all.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"That's not a scientific consensus you dolt. Do you even know what the term means?"
Name-calling is not nice. Or mature. The term refers to the collective judgment, position, or opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. The content of whatever the scientific consensus is on a matter is what governs the content of science textbooks. You've brought up an interesting case where the US gov't censored textbooks, so they had to come up with a different consensus...tbc
mmmcounts 3 years ago
However, the gov't censorship that happened post-Scopes is not relevant to anything that happened in the earlier part of the 20th century. During that time, and all other times outside of the post-Scopes era for that matter, the scientific community was free to express their collective consensuses in their textbooks. If there was a scientific consensus, it was expressed there as such. If not, well, it wasn't. No one forced them to do anything else, as was the case post-Scopes.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"However, the gov't censorship that happened post-Scopes is not relevant to anything that happened in the earlier part of the 20th century"
It's an example that shows that your claims about textbooks showing consensus are nonsensical.
"the scientific community was free to express their collective consensuses in their textbooks"
Consensus isn't expressed in textbooks. You haven't provided any evidence that that's the case, you just repeat that unsubstantiated claim ad nauseam.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"It's an example that shows that your claims about textbooks showing consensus are nonsensical."
It's an example of how one time, government censorship caused the content of textbooks to deviate from the norm. The norm is for scientific consensus to determine what goes in a textbook, and that's what happened in the early 20th century. Government censorship didn't cause eugenics to be presented as real science in textbooks. The normal process of scientific consensus did.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"It's an example of how one time, government censorship caused the content of textbooks to deviate from the norm"
No, it wasn't government censorship, it was the people that wrote the textbooks that left it out.
"The norm is for scientific consensus to determine what goes in a textbook"
You were arguing the exact opposite a while ago, that textbooks determined consensus. And a lot of things make it into science textbooks that's not accepted by the scientific community.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"The normal process of scientific consensus did"
And there's that unsubstantiated claim again.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Name-calling is not nice"
If you don't want people to call you a dolt you shouldn't act like one. I'm just calling a spade a spade.
"The term refers to the collective judgment, position, or opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study"
And how on earth does that definition apply to what you said about evolution being omitted? You were talking nonsense.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"You've brought up an interesting case where the US gov't censored textbooks, so they had to come up with a different consensus"
No, that had NOTHING to do with consensus. The consensus was that evolution occured, the textbooks omitted it because of religious and judicial reasons. It had nothing to do with consensus at all.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"No, that had NOTHING to do with consensus. The consensus was that evolution occured"
As a result, that's what went in textbooks. When the government censored that material, they had to come up with a new consensus and present that within the rules that had been established. Once the censorship ended, the situation returned to normal and the content in science textbooks once again went according to what the complete scientific consensus was. How else do you think they would decide on content?
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"As a result, that's what went in textbooks"
No, post scopes it DIDN'T go in US textbooks.
"When the government censored that material, they had to come up with a new consensus and present that within the rules that had been established"
Babble, pure babble. You're talking nonsense. The consensus did not change at all.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"If you don't want people to call you a dolt you shouldn't act like one."
That's called rationalizing. You're also trying to blame me for your own behavior. Demonstrate a little self-control and take responsibility for what you do.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"That's called rationalizing"
No, that's called calling a spade a spade. You keep making nonsensical claims, which makes you a dolt.
"You're also trying to blame me for your own behavior"
No, I'm not, I'm telling you that you're acting like an idiot, which will make people call you one.
"Demonstrate a little self-control and take responsibility for what you do"
Lol. Hypocrite.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"No, I'm not, I'm telling you that you're acting like an idiot, which will make people call you one"
In the exact same way that people who make statements that make it clear that they're Neo-nazis are called Neo-nazis. That's not name-calling, that's calling a spade a spade.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"which will make people call you one."
I don't make you do anything. You decide for yourself what you do. Don't blame me.
"Hypocrite."
Again with the name-calling. It's unnecessary. Also embarrassing for you.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"I don't make you do anything"
Yes you do. Your posts make it clear to be that you're just arguing from presuppositions. You want your claims to be true, but can't actually back them up.
"Don't blame me"
The blame is entirely yours. You make it clear that you're a dolt, don't blame others for calling you one.
"Again with the name-calling. It's unnecessary. Also embarrassing for you"
No, I'm just stating facts. Like calling a neo-nazi a neo-nazi.
deBeuk 3 years ago
Post scopes trial US high school textbooks omitted evolution altogether. By your logic that would mean there was no scientific consensus.
Lol.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Post scopes trial US high school textbooks omitted evolution altogether. By your logic that would mean there was no scientific consensus.
Lol."
The consensus was that evolution was something to omit. Therefore, it was omitted. Later, the consensus was that evolution was something to teach exclusively. As a result...
Once again, the content of science textbooks is the consensus of the scientific community at that time. If you want to see what the consensus is, read the textbooks.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"The consensus was that evolution was something to omit."
That's not a scientific consensus you dolt. Do you even know what the term means?
"Later, the consensus was that evolution was something to teach exclusively"
That's not a scientific consensus either.
"Once again, the content of science textbooks is the consensus of the scientific community at that time"
No, it's not. Back your claims up or GTFO please.
deBeuk 3 years ago
And once again, I'll ask that question that you can't seem to see very well:
What would you conclude about science as a whole if every science textbook began presenting y-e creationism as legitimate science?
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"What would you conclude about science as a whole if every science textbook began presenting y-e creationism as legitimate science?"
I've already answered that question. Can you read?
deBeuk 3 years ago
Yet problematic for you...
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"Yet problematic for you..."
No, not at all. You still haven't shown any kind of consensus.
deBeuk 3 years ago
Exploring Biology (Harcourt, Brace, & Co.) and A Modern Biology (Henry, Holt, & Co.) are two more examples of multi-edition textbooks that retained eugenics as a legitimate science all the way into the '50's for one and the '60's for the other.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"textbooks"
Still not showing a consensus.
deBeuk 3 years ago
Stop avoiding the question. It's a simple one.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"Stop avoiding the question. It's a simple one"
You didn't ask a question.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"You didn't ask a question."
That's a ridiculous assertion. I certainly did. And you still haven't answered it. But that's because you know what the obvious answer is, and it's not a comfortable one for you. If y-e creationism, a pseudoscience, were presented in every scientific textbook as real science, this would require scientific consensus that is notably lacking. Since eugenics, another pseudoscience, was presented in this way, we know there was such a consensus in the scientific community.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"That's a ridiculous assertion"
No, check the post I was replying to. You didn't ask me any question.
"If y-e creationism, a pseudoscience, were presented in every scientific textbook as real science, this would require scientific consensus"
I have answered that question. And no, that doesn't mean there's a scientific consensus.
deBeuk 3 years ago
By 1928, eugenics was a topic in 376 separate college courses, which enrolled approximately 20,000 students. A content analysis of high school science texts published between 1914 and 1948 indicates that a majority presented eugenics was as legitimate science. Selden, S., Eugenics popularization, ww wg enic sarc hiveorg/ht ml/eug enics/ess ay6text tml, 3 July 2006.
Not really sure how much I have to mangle a link to get it to post.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"I would regard scientists between 1880 and 1930 in the same way if there had been scientists who did anything meaningful against eugenics"
Hmm,religious people were promoting it just the same.
"A content analysis of high school science texts published between 1914 and 1948 indicates that a majority presented eugenics was as legitimate science"
And again, textbooks don't meanthere's a consensus.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"And again, textbooks don't meanthere's a consensus."
I'll ask one more time, and this is all I want to know, deBeuk: What would you conclude about science as a whole if every science textbook began presenting y-e creationism as legitimate science? Answer this question.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"What would you conclude about science as a whole if every science textbook began presenting y-e creationism as legitimate science? Answer this question."
Again, most of them did, prior to Darwin.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Again, most of them did, prior to Darwin."
So what do you conclude about the way in which science as a whole regarded y-e creationism at that time?
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"So what do you conclude about the way in which science as a whole regarded y-e creationism at that time? "
That textbooks can contain pseudo-science, not that textbooks show us any kind of scientific consensus.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"That textbooks can contain pseudo-science, not that textbooks show us any kind of scientific consensus."
The content of textbooks IS the scientific consensus of what is legitimate science.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"The content of textbooks IS the scientific consensus of what is legitimate science. "
Poppycock. Back your claims up with evidence, please.
deBeuk 3 years ago
You left the next part out of that quote.
"These texts embraced Galton's concept of differential birthrates between the biological "fit" and "unfit," training high school students that immigration restriction, segregation, and sterilization were worthy policies to maintain in American culture"
Science doesn't advocate policies. You do know what science is, don't you?
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Science doesn't advocate policies"
And this issue.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"By 1928, eugenics was a topic in 376 separate college courses, which enrolled approximately 20,000 students. A content analysis of high school science texts published between 1914 and 1948 indicates that a majority presented eugenics was as legitimate science"
I notice how you left out the next sentence (according to the text containing that quote on the eugenics archive)
"While eugenics was indeed popular, it was poor science and it was rejected on scientific grounds".
deBeuk 3 years ago
i'll guive you a good example of eugenics in action, and motivated by what?? you got that right - RELIGION. Please check the armenian genocide to see how religion has made a much more practical use of that concept then scientists...
MiguelDeCorella 3 years ago
"motivated by what?? you got that right - RELIGION."
Did you read earlier comments? Some religious people support eugenics. Far more religious people opposed it- and them.
For your examples of social application, 1914 Model Eugenical Sterilization Law (regarding involuntary sterilization), and Buck v. Bell 1927 (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., presiding). That's an embarrassment for the justice system, just as it was for scientists or anyone else who supported the same thing.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
For your examples of social application, 1914 Model Eugenical Sterilization Law (regarding involuntary sterilization), and Buck v. Bell 1927 (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., presiding).
Very good, two examples. Let's look at the numbers. Did scientific curiosity in eugenics claimed more victims then religious motivation, or historical precedents as the greek? No.
That's an embarrassment for the justice system,
as much as the death penalty.
MiguelDeCorella 3 years ago
"Did scientific curiosity in eugenics claimed more victims"
I don't care. What I care about is the lack of opposition to this "scientific curiosity" from within the scientific community. I also care about the content of scientific textbooks, and prior to 1930- 3/4 of them prior to 1940- eugenics was presented as real science, a logical progression of Darwinism. Somewhat harmless when discussed among European philosophical elites, yes. More dangerous in a genetics textbook.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"I don't care"
Of course you don't, you just want to spout nonsensical claims and blame it all on scientists. Pathetic.
"What I care about is the lack of opposition to this "scientific curiosity" from within the scientific community"
And you don't care about the lack of moral indignation from withing parts of the religious community in the US at all. Gotcha.
"More dangerous in a genetics textbook"
There were no genetics textbooks prior to the discovery of DNA you cretin.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"And you don't care about the lack of moral indignation from withing parts of the religious community in the US at all. Gotcha."
Try to keep up, deBeuk. There is all kinds of moral indignation from within parts of the religious community regarding human rights and the preservation of life. There are some religious people who have supported eugenics, and at the same time, there were also religious people who displayed much moral indignation toward eugenics and its supporters.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"Try to keep up, deBeuk"
I am keeping up. You blame one infinitesimally small part of society for not speaking up against eugenics, while giving another, arguably larger, part a free pass. All the while ignoring that eugenics had been practiced for millennia prior to the term itself being used.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"while giving another, arguably larger, part a free pass."
It's not a free pass. It's kudos for doing the right thing. Speak up against it, that is. Something done by prominent religious people in society at that time. So kudos to them.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
are you in favour of death penalty Mnmcounts? explain me what is the major difference between these two state sanctioned deaths?
MiguelDeCorella 3 years ago
"explain me what is the major difference between these two state sanctioned deaths?"
You seriously don't know? Are you stupid or something? A simple definition of each reveals that they are called different things b/c they are different things. Yes, they both involve killing...though in the case of state sanctioned eugenics, we're usually looking at sterilization rather than killing...hmmm, starting to see how there's some similarity but also a bit of a difference?
mmmcounts 3 years ago
You seriously don't know? Are you stupid or something?
No, you're just avoiding the question. isn't death penalty as repulsive concept as eugenics?
MiguelDeCorella 3 years ago
"isn't death penalty as repulsive concept as eugenics?"
I don't entirely agree with it, but no, it's not repulsive on the same level. If you view the two as being essentially the same thing, you must have something wrong with you. Maybe the same thing that's wrong with people who regard contraception or abortion as being repulsive at the same level as murder. Yea, that's what you sound like. I made the comparison.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
If you view the two as being essentially the same thing, you must have something wrong with you. Maybe the same thing that's wrong with people who regard contraception or abortion as being repulsive at the same level as murder. Yea, that's what you sound like
No, eugenics and death penalty are abuse of the state power. abortion is personal freedom. and murder is the elimination of another individual's freedom...
MiguelDeCorella 3 years ago
"abortion is personal freedom. and murder is the elimination of another individual's freedom..."
Oh, now all of a sudden you can see the differences.
"No, eugenics and death penalty are abuse of the state power."
Unless you feel like focusing on a particular similarity and exclude all the differences. But hey, it's all based on what you feel like doing. If you want to do that...go for it.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"abortion is personal freedom. and murder is the elimination of another individual's freedom..."
Oh, now all of a sudden you can see the differences.
excuse me? when did i mentioned abortion and murder? You did, with you childisch silogism
Unless you feel like focusing on a particular similarity and exclude all the differences.
That ain't the point of what i'm discussing. or you are unable to understand it, or you're just avoiding it...
MiguelDeCorella 3 years ago
"That ain't the point of what i'm discussing."
That's exactly what the point is. See if you can highlight the similarities between eugenics and the death penalty but ignore the differences.
"excuse me? when did i mentioned abortion and murder? You did, with you childisch silogism"
LOL check spelling, please...it wasn't a childish syllogism, it was a relevant comparison. Like an analogy, if you will, between two sets of people and beliefs. A is to B as C is to D...that type of thing. It's fun.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"That ain't the point of what i'm discussing."
That's exactly what the point is. See if you can highlight the similarities between eugenics and the death penalty but ignore the differences.
no, i'm asking what is so different in essence? aren't both equally wrong? State murders?
LOL check spelling, please
i won't. english is not my language,i an allowed some mistakes. Unless you want to continue this conversation in another language?
MiguelDeCorella 3 years ago
"LOL check spelling, please"
Care to address his arguments instead of focusing on his spelling please?
deBeuk 3 years ago
"It's not a free pass. It's kudos for doing the right thing"
Ehm, what??? Part of the religious comminity giving a free pass to eugenics, quoting the bible to back it up, is a right thing???
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Ehm, what??? Part of the religious comminity giving a free pass to eugenics, quoting the bible to back it up, is a right thing???"
No, that was wrong. But I fully support G. K. Chesterton in quoting the Bible and speaking out against eugenics. He also wrote a book about it, in which he quoted the Bible at great length. Christianity had these kinds of people standing up against eugenics, and it was prior to 1920- not after 1930.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"No, that was wrong"
But you give them a free pass. That was a /larger/ section of the population that scientists in general.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"But you give them a free pass. That was a /larger/ section of the population that scientists in general."
I would regard scientists between 1880 and 1930 in the same way if there had been scientists who did anything meaningful against eugenics. Stop calling it a free pass, because that's not what it is, and I know you're just calling it that to goad me.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"Stop calling it a free pass"
No, because that's exactly what you're doing.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"That's an embarrassment for the justice system,
as much as the death penalty."
Nooo, no, no. Not even close. Judicial support of eugenics is way more problematic than judicial support of the death penalty. How is the death penalty relevant, anyway?
mmmcounts 3 years ago
Nooo, no, no. Not even close. Judicial support of eugenics is way more problematic than judicial support of the death penalty.
Is it? i don't see how. It's still the state deciding over someone's life...
MiguelDeCorella 3 years ago
"Is it? i don't see how. It's still the state deciding over someone's life..."
If you can't see, open your eyes. Keep thinking.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
If you can't see, open your eyes. Keep thinking.
Open MY eyes? are you in favour of death penalty or what?
MiguelDeCorella 3 years ago
"That's an embarrassment for the justice system, just as it was for scientists or anyone else who supported the same thing. "
Where's your evidence that there was a consensus, mnm? You're just blowing hot smoke now.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Where's your evidence that there was a consensus?"
Textbooks.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"Textbooks"
1) that's not evidence that there was a consensus
2) you haven't shown that evidence to begin with.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Textbooks"
1) that's not evidence that there was a consensus"
Yes it is. Y-e creationism is the most recent example of pseudoscience that wants to be taken seriously as real science, or at least the next best alternative. Because science as a whole rejects it as pseudoscience, that's the only mention it gets in textbooks. Eugenics was treated differently because science as a whole failed to reject what was a pseudoscience, and instead they regarded it as legit application of real science.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"Yes it is"
No, it's not.
"Eugenics was treated differently because science as a whole failed to reject what was a pseudoscience"
Science as a whole never accepted it as science.
"instead they regarded it as legit application of real science"
No, they didn't. It was an application of statistics, and not accepted as science at all. There was no scientific consensus.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"Science as a whole never accepted it as science."
Apparently they did. And it's not b/c I say so- it's b/c the textbooks did.
"No, they didn't. It was an application of statistics, and not accepted as science at all. There was no scientific consensus."
So let the stats textbooks deal with it. Right? Wrong. The biology and genetics (classical genetics, Mendel type) textbooks also accepted it as acceptable application of science. They shouldn't have, but they did.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"Apparently they did. And it's not b/c I say so- it's b/c the textbooks did."
The same unsubstantiated claims. Care to back them up?
"So let the stats textbooks deal with it. Right?"
No, textbooks don't mean there's a consensus.
"The biology and genetics (classical genetics, Mendel type) textbooks also accepted it as acceptable application of science"
And more claims. No evidence.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"No, textbooks don't mean there's a consensus."
As far as the treatment of a pseudoscience as science...yes, it does require consensus for such a thing to happen, just as it would require a consensus for y-e creationism to be taught as science. Instead, there is a consensus in the opposing direction. That should have happened with regard to eugenics, but at that time, it did not.
Selective traditions and the science curriculum: Eugenics and the biology textbook, 1914-1949. Steven Selden.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"As far as the treatment of a pseudoscience as science...yes, it does require consensus for such a thing to happen"
Still haven't seen you show me any evidence that there was a concensus.
"Selective traditions and the science curriculum: Eugenics and the biology textbook, 1914-1949. Steven Selden"
Like I said, textbooks don't mean consensus.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"there is a consensus in the opposing direction"
That's a sort of god of the gaps fallacy.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"That's a sort of god of the gaps fallacy."
What would you conclude if science textbooks included y-e creationism as legit science? Answer this one simple question.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"What would you conclude if science textbooks included y-e creationism as legit science? Answer this one simple question. "
Some have, in fact. In fact, prior to Darwin most of them did.
deBeuk 3 years ago
"The biology and genetics (classical genetics, Mendel type) textbooks also accepted it as acceptable application of science"
Oh, I missed this one. Application of science, or actually, pseudo-science. Applications of science aren't science. Applications of science don't reflect on the scientific community. Science doesn't make an ought (ought to sterilise people with unwanted traits) out of an is.
deBeuk 3 years ago