Even the little victories feel good....

[steinhenge]

This is a crazy story and someone should probably discuss it in "Politics, Current Events, and Social Issues", but one tiny aspect of the story makes my science-loving heart very happy indeed.

Unabashed Racist Leads Tenn. GOP Primary

The second paragraph ends with this statement: "...James L. Hart, a believer in the discredited, phony science of eugenics." (emphasis mine)

What I expect from any media news source is something a little more along the lines of "...a believer in the controversial science of eugenics", a statement that is far less damning to a wooish pseudoscience than the original statement is. To come out and pretty much say that no respectable scientist would give eugenics the time of day is to be commended. To see that much spine on an AP writer is unusual.

 

[CBL4]

I read this and had mixed feelings about the phrase 'discredited, phony science." Eugenics as practiced in the early part of this century is clearly discredited. The racial aspects that this moron advocates are clearly bogus. But eugenics could work to eliminate/reduce some genetic ailments. It would probably be an extremely bad idea but it is scientifically sound.

What really burns me is that homeopathy and creation pseudoscience are never described with the phrase discredited phony science. I assume that this is because they are popular with significant portions of our population.

Apparently it is OK to call eugenics discredited because it has a racist aspect. But it is not OK to use the same phrase for truly, absolutely, bogus pseudosciences if they have a significant acceptable following.

CBL

 

[steinhenge]

I read this and had mixed feelings about the phrase 'discredited, phony science." Eugenics as practiced in the early part of this century is clearly discredited. The racial aspects that this moron advocates are clearly bogus. But eugenics could work to eliminate/reduce some genetic ailments. It would probably be an extremely bad idea but it is scientifically sound.

What really burns me is that homeopathy and creation pseudoscience are never described with the phrase discredited phony science. I assume that this is because they are popular with significant portions of our population.

Apparently it is OK to call eugenics discredited because it has a racist aspect. But it is not OK to use the same phrase for truly, absolutely, bogus pseudosciences if they have a significant acceptable following.

CBL

All good points and I agree, there are frustrating aspects in regards to the way this was used and the light that it shines on media reactions to h-pathy and creation "pseudoscience" (nice!). Still, as my title implies, you gotta start somewhere....