Talk:Eugenics/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Integration

Disregard

 – Off-topic.

the English liberal J. Bentham, his suggestion about the low class children in England:

"An inspection-house, to which a set of children had been consigned from their birth, might afford experiments enough. What say you to a foundling-hospital upon this principle?" Bentham, Works, vol. 4, p. 64.

[You] "may even clap them up in an inspection-house, and then you make of them what you please. You need never grudge the parents a peep behind the curtain in the master's lodge . . . you might keep up a sixteen or eighteen years separation between the male and female part of your young subjects" Bentham, Works, vol. 4, pp. 64-5.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.102.169 (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2017‎ (UTC)

This is not a forum for the general discussion of this subject matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Even as potential material to add in some form, I don't see how it relates. A proposal to victimize institutionalized minors as experimental subjects with no recourse isn't a eugenics program; no breeding, sterilization, or offspring-culling is involved. The closest thing in it is keeping the boys and girls apart until young adulthood, which would just be a socialization handicap and probably really frustrating (and probably an inducement to frequent same-sex rape, after puberty, as in any prison). Flagging this as off-topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"Lead too long" tag

An editor added a "lead too long" clean up tage to the article, which I reverted. Cleanup tags represent the opinion of a single editor, and if they are disputed, they are not immune from the necessity of discussion, just like any other disputed edit.

I do not believe that the lead to this article is too long. Eugenics is a complex subject, and summarizing the complexities in a way that the reader can easily understand requires some length. I invite the editor to explain here why they think the lead is too long as specifically as possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep. It could be text-compressed a little here and there, but breadth-wise, it seems fine.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The manual of style says “a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs”. Obviously six is greater than four. And well composed these are not. Being there are three major sections in this article, there should be three takeaways in the lead. That man from Nantucket (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

And, also obviously, the MOS is an editing guideline and is not mandatory. As the very top of the MOS page says, it is to be dealt with with common sense. Every article has its own needs, and if a subject is complex, and needs more than four paragraphs to summarize, then it should have more than four paragraphs in its lede. The idea that "one size fits all", and that the lede for Eugenics must be the same size as the lede for, say, Thomas Fairfax, 13th Lord Fairfax of Cameron is simply silly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

We do have plenty of FAs that use 5+. It's not a policy, and shouldn't even be interpreted as a "rule", since "paragraph" has no particular size definition. Some paragraphs are one short sentence, others are ten medium sentences, others two very long ones. It should be interpreted as meaning "should contain no more material than four average-sized, well-composed paragraphs". But the "could be text-compressed a little here and there" point would likely result in getting it under the general limit anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

No true scotsman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Francis Galton who coined the word eugenics, also carefully stated in his definition that eugenics is science. This means that any pseudo- or bunk science advertised under the label "eugenics" is still not real science and thus cannot be real eugenics either. You may think that this resembles No true Scotsman fallacy, but no, quite the opposite. I am defending the original definition of eugenics, not trying to invent a new definition. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It is a no true Scotsman fallacy, and the fact that Galton believed his pseudoscience to be scientific does not make it so.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You cannot make eugenics become pseudoscience simply by calling it pseudoscience. What is science depends on accepted scientific standards, such as the scientific method, falsifiability of claims, and Mertonian norms. If you have seen some obvious pseudoscience under the label of "eugenics", you could talk about pseudoeugenics as well. According to the original definition, anything non-scientific or pseudoscience cannot be eugenics. If you build a car and claim that it is Mercedes-Benz, then what should that car be called: Mercedes-Benz or something else? If someone does something and calls that something eugenics, it may or may not be eugenics, depending how that something fits the definition of eugenics. I did not slip to the No true Scotsman fallacy because I stick to the original definition unlike ·maunus. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

For those interested here is Galton's definition: "EUGENICS is the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage." Given that the idea that biologically distinct races exist with different inborn qualities is pseudoscientific, I don't see how his definition can escape the same problem. Especially given that the idea of "improvement" of biological traits is also pseudoscientific as it is not based on any objective standard of what constitutes an improvement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:DENYRECOGNITION, WP:FRINGE. Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Francis Galton used the word race in the definition of eugenics. Regardless did Galton mean "the human race" or "some particular race" or "any race" that is not important. Important is that he did not mean an individual. You may interpret the word "race" quite much the way you wish and the definition of eugenics is still fine. About the improvement then: Galton did not leave it there. He said "to the utmost advantage" and advantage is a keyword here. You may think what could be an utmost disadvantage; perhaps a serious genetic illness. Towards an advantage means less illness and better health. Or, as Galton continued after the short definition: "All creatures would agree that it was better to be healthy than sick, vigorous than weak, well-fitted than ill-fitted for their part in life; in short, that it was better to be good rather than bad specimens of their kind, whatever that kind might be. So with men." I don't see any problem in Galton's definition. If medical science knows how to distinguish a disease and a trait, and that is not pseudoscience, then I see that it works same way in eugenics. To detect an illness is one task, and to find its origin is another. Sometimes it may be genetic. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop it, we are not having this discussion.

See WP:FRINGE – and be minded that WP:DISRUPTIVE editing can lead to a ban or block.

Ignoring and advocating WP:FRINGE constitutes disruption. Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I was not editing an article recklessly. This is a talk page of the article. I wanted to discuss and you prefer to suppress. Were my lines unconvenient? ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Although I am loath to wade into this, I would like to see any academic support for the claim that eugenics is considered pseudoscience. For instance, the Annals of Human Genetics, a high impact factor good journal in the fields of genetics, use to be entitled the Annals of Eugenics and was renamed for political reasons. R. A. Fisher, one of the founders of modern evolutionary biology, was a prominent eugenicist. It would be quite odd to regard him as a Fringe or pseudoscientific voice. There is some room for nuanced debate here, but I am unaware of any consensus opinion in the field of human genetics condemning eugenics as pseudoscience. So could you provide any academic support for your opinions? LarryBoy79 (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Do the Annals of Human Genetics still publish Eugenics studies? Does it advocate eugenics? Are any prominent contemporary geneticists doing so?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes obviously. Screening for Down's for example. Richard Lynn 8 (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Struck Mikemikev sock's edit. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Sometimes, Yes.

What would a eugenic study be, in your opinion? There are many studies on the heritability of quantitative traits in human populations and the differences thereof, and it is listed as one of the chief aims of the journal. However, the focus on the practice of eugenics, that is attempting to decrease the prevalence of genetic diseases through prevention of birth rather than treatment, is no longer a focus of the journal, so it may be appropriate to say that it is no longer a eugenics journal as such.

However, there is some question as to what is appropriate to label eugenics. Earlier in this thread, you claimed that the idea “that biologically distinct races exist with different inborn qualities is pseudoscientific”. Taking inborn here to mean “genetic”, then I believe you would be fairly comfortable labeling Charles Murry views as pseudoscientific since he claims that there exists a genetic basis for racial differences in IQ test performance. But he certainly doesn't seem to have trouble getting his work published in scientific journals, such as Intelligence. Additionally, a respectably sized group of academics have defended him against charges like yours, stating that his views are actually pretty main-stream.

So if you want to argue that the opinion that eugenics “isn't true” or “doesn't work” is so widespread among human geneticist/genomicist that it is disruptive to question whether or not it is appropriate to label eugenics as pseudomedicine then surely there should be at least a handful of scholarly statements to that effect, right? Unfortunately I think you will there is no paper trail showing that the scholarly community ever abandoned eugenics, and that to this day if you really forced scholars to choose between The Bell Curve and The Mismeasure of Man I'm not really sure which one would come up on top (though I vote for the Mismeasure of Man myself). So if a scholar within the main body of scholarly work can claim that there are genetic differences between races which result in measurable differences in IQ, is it perhaps a little too early to declare eugenics dead?

Some contemporary discussions of Eugenics. I did not note a general tenor dismissing the idea as pseudoscientific, though some sources identified eugenics with the proposition that many diseases that eugenicists sought to eliminate were oligogenic, which is false. I think this claim to be historically unlikely, as I believe the consensus has long been that most quantitative traits are highly polygenic, but I rarely read sources from before about 1970, so I could be mistaken.

• Article discussing dysgenic effects.
• Discussion of historic and contemporary eugenics in the Annals of Human Genetics
• Discussion of 'private' eugenics in India
• Discussion of 'private' eugenics in the US
• Discussion of possibility and application of 'in vitro' eugenics

LarryBoy79 (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

So, is anybody still trying to provide citations supporting the idea that geneticists consider eugenics psudoe-medicine? If some citation cannot be provided in the next week I'm inclined to just remove the side bar. LarryBoy79 (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, citations abound, look at the article. Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I see a citation to a journalist who clearly makes the claim, but are there any medical doctors or geneticists who make the claim? I'm sure the answere is yes, some do, but in order to be labled a pseudo science shouldn't it be the case that the relevent scientific community generaly considers it pseudo science? And, do you have anything stronger than the claim of a single journalist? LarryBoy79 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

So, could you provide a more detailed argument that "I say so." LarryBoy79 (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Carl Fredrik: You seem to be the most vocal opposition to the idea of removing the side bar. I've explained to you that I feel that the genetics community, by and large, does not view eugenics as pseudo-medicine, and provided a list of citations to modern discussions of eugenics within medical and genetic literature. I still do not understand why you feel so certain that geneticists consider eugenics pseudo-medicine. Will you please engage me in constructive discussion by articulating your position? LarryBoy79 (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2018

No. I am outright stating that I will not discuss this with you, at all. That is because there is no possibility of "constructive" discussion. There are numerous talk page threads resulting in this long standing consensus, a wealth of sources in the article and on talk pages, and with only one of your sources even vaguely supporting your position, most of your own sources opposing it, this is text-book WP:FRINGE. The very idea of discussing the issue validates it beyond what can be valid scientific discourse. I stated the relevant support before: WP:DENYRECOGNITION. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

So why not just go away? "OMG I CAN'T EVEN" isn't an argument. 146.255.14.121 (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Eugenics is sound science

Eugenics is an applied science based on genetics, similar to how engineering is an applied science based on physics. The fact that many past ideas in physics were wrong does not mean physics or engineering is pseudoscience. Similarly, the fact that many past ideas in genetics were wrong does not make genetics or eugenics pseudoscience.

The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice. - Richard Dawkins[1]

Dawkins, one of the 21st century's most famous evolutionary biologist, says eugenics is valid science. This link is in the article, and there are more links in the article that state eugenics is valid science than say it is a pseudoscience. I think some who say eugenics was and always will be pseudoscience, are confusing eugenics for Aryan race ideology. In the early twentieth century, the two ideologies overlapped in some ways, but they are just as distinguishable as the overlap between the Progressive Era and eugenics. Waters.Justin (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the question then, is how to proceed? It is clear that some editors are simply not willing to discuss or re-consider their opinions, but I Wikipedia is built on consensus. How can you arrive at a consensus without discussing or re-consider opinions? I am at a loss. LarryBoy79 (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

We don't. That quote which is taken without context and and does not even mention eugenics, yet is still WP:FRINGE. There is no support, no serious sources have been presented — and you're just creating a time-sink. I'm closing this discussion now. Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The quote is about eugenics. You've gone into PC overload and you're completely irrational. 146.255.14.121 (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of noteworthy opinions regarding the veracity of eugenics

Please only include reliable, preferably modern (post-1945) sources. Keep comments to a minimum. I'll confine myself to three sources for now, until someone else adds some. LarryBoy79 (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Notes: I removed a reference to a newspaper article as non-notable. I think we should confine references to serious scholarly works only, preferably those that make a serious attempt to examine the veracity of eugenics, rather than simply mentioning it in passing within some other context. Some of the sources I've incorporated from PaleoNeonate's list are slightly more oblique than I would consider ideal, but I've incorporated them for now in order to fairly represent PaleoNeonate's contribution. LarryBoy79 (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

What is unusual is the rejection of a theory that is essentially correct. It is my objective in this book to establish that this is what occurred in the twentieth century with regard to eugenics.

Richard Lynn, "Eugenics, A Reassessment"

It should be noted that Richard Lynn might be considered a fringe source. LarryBoy79 (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Some opponents have dismissed eugenics as a pseudo-science that attracted extremists, but the reality is far more complicated. Were the movement that simple, it would perhaps have been short-lived and more limited, and it was anything but. Not only do we still find ourselves facing ethical arguments over reproduction and heredity today, but the huge reach of this movement—throughout the Americas and Asia, across Europe, and in the Middle East as well as the Pacific and parts of Africa—and its persistence in science and in social policy throughout the twentieth century, even after the defeat of Nazism, dictate that we take it seriously.

Philippa Levine, "Eugenics, A very short introduction."

The difficulty in evaluating the eugenics movement in retrospect is that because it is such an extreme embarrassment to American biological science, there is a strong tendency to ignore it, deny it, or revise it. Eugenics was, in fact, a mainstream movement in the scientific community, cross-cutting political lines in its utopian vision of a crime-free society. Virtually all members of the genetics community were in favor of eugenics through the mid-1920s.

It is a consequence of the movement’s popularity within the scientific community that eugenics was science, not pseudoscience [emphasis original]. If all the relevant scientists believed it, how could eugenics possibly be pseudoscience? If eugenics represented a corruption of certain scientific principles, it is hard to escape the conclusion, from simply examining the literature, that it was the scientists themselves who were the corruptors.

Kenneth Ludmerer, a historian of the movement, notes that of the founding members of the editorial board of the journal Genetics in 1916, every one was a supporter of eugenics. Indeed, “until the mid-1920’s no geneticist of note . . . publicly disputed [the claims of eugenics]."

One of the earliest notable biologists to fall away from eugenics was Columbia’s Thomas Hunt Morgan. While Princeton’s E. G. Conklin was laying out the platform of eugenics without the evangelical zeal of other scientists . . . .

Jonathan Marks, "Human Biodiversity, Genes, Race, and History."

Providing explanations for social inequalities as being rooted in nature is a classic pseudoscientific occupation. It has always been welcome, for it provides those in power with a natural validation of their social status. This was as true at the turn of the twentieth century as it is at the turn of the twenty-first-the groups change as the social issues evolve, but the arguments remain eerily unaltered.

Jonathan Marks, "Human Biodiversity, Genes, Race, and History."

Political opposition to eugenic breeding of humans sometimes spills over into the almost certainly false assertion that it is impossible. Not only is it immoral, you may hear it said, it wouldn’t work. Unfortunately, to say that something is morally wrong, or politically undesirable, is not to say that it wouldn’t work. I have no doubt that, if you set your mind to it and had enough time and enough political power, you could breed a race of superior body-builders, or high-jumpers, or shot-putters; pearl fishers, sumo wrestlers, or sprinters; or (I suspect, although now with less confidence because there are no animal precedents) superior musicians, poets, mathematicians or wine-tasters. The reason I am confident about selective breeding for athletic prowess is that the qualities needed are so similar to those that demonstrably work in the breeding of racehorses and carthorses, of greyhounds and sledge dogs. The reason I am still pretty confident about the practical feasibility (though not the moral or political desirability) of selective breeding for mental or otherwise uniquely human traits is that there are so few examples where an attempt at selective breeding in animals has ever failed, even for traits that might have been thought surprising. Who would have thought, for example, that dogs could be bred for sheep-herding skills, or ‘pointing’, or bull-baiting?

You want high milk yield in cows, orders of magnitude more gallons than could ever be needed by a mother to rear her babies? Selective breeding can give it to you. Cows can be modified to grow vast and ungainly udders, and these continue to yield copious quantities of milk indefinitely, long after the normal weaning period of a calf. As it happens, dairy horses have not been bred in this way, but will anyone contest my bet that we could do it if we tried? And of course, the same would be true of dairy humans, if anyone wanted to try. All too many women, bamboozled by the myth that breasts like melons are attractive, pay surgeons large sums of money to implant silicone, with (for my money) unappealing results. Does anyone doubt that, given enough generations, the same deformity could be achieved by selective breeding, after the manner of Friesian cows?

Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, 2009.

Deleet (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The literature on pseudoscience has focused on idiosyncrasy in the treatment of the evidential aspects of rational belief. We have not spent much time analyzing idiosyncrasies in the treatment of values. The fact that values have some role means that the ways theories of rational belief can go wrong are more varied than the literature has tended to address. If we cannot simply dismiss the influence of values as distortion, then we have to tease out the range of potentially legitimate influences and point out idiosyncrasies where they can be identified. Further complications arise when we consider the interaction of values and evidence as warranted by some theories.

... If values have a proper input to rational inquiry, it is easier to understand how mistakes could be made and lead to improper inputs. For example, it is hard for us now to understand the acceptance of eugenic “science.” When, however, we consider the values that scientists held, it makes more sense. The belief was that science was not ethically neutral, but that it was on the side of progress for humanity. From there the belief in “scientifically” engineering the biological progress of humans was not so far, at least rhetorically speaking.

Nicholas Shackel, Philosophy of Pseudoscience Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Edited by Boudry and Pigliucci

His findings were surprising, even to Boas. As he expected, the behavior of the Sicilians after 10 years in the United States was markedly different than their behavior upon arrival. This cultural change was most profound among the children, many of whom behaved in ways identical to children whose families had been in America for generations. Clearly, cultural behavior was the product of the environment, and was independent of biology. The part of the study that was most unexpected, even to Boas, was that even the biology was subject to change. Cephalic index, once thought to be a static identifier of race, also changed among the Sicilian immigrants. Again, the most profound changes occurred among the children. Even biology, it seemed, was subject to modification from the environment.

Paul F. Brown, 21st century anthropology a reference hand book. Edited by Brix

An alternative way to view the effects that biotechnology and genetic engineering could have on a modern population requires the natural manipulation of individuals through human intervention (using eugenics and euthenics or proliferagenics). The desired or beneficial genetic results can now be accelerated with genetic engineering.

From a historical perspective, humankind long ago began to alter the process of natural selection of animals and plants to yield beneficial results. Now, with the advent of genetic engineering, humankind has the ability to accelerate that process even more. In fact, one can speculate that humankind may eventually possess control over its own evolution.

The possibility that humankind may have direct control over its own evolution, by using genetic engineering and DNA nanotechnology, is known as emerging teleology.

John K. Grandy, 21st century anthropology a reference hand book. Edited by Brix

A breif comment on this one: It is interesting to note that Grandy's definition of emerging teleolgy, "that humankind may have direct control over its own evolution, by using genetic engineering and DNA nanotechnology" is virtually identical to the definition emblazoned on the logo from the Second International Eugenics Conference "Eugenics is the self direction of human evolution". Lending support to Black's claim that human genetics is simply eugenics re-branded. LarryBoy79 (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

After Hitler, eugenics did not disappear. It renamed itself. What had thrived loudly as eugenics for decades quietly took postwar refuge under the labels human genetics and genetic counseling.

The transition was slow and subtle and spanned decades. Some defected from American eugenics as early as the twenties, prompted by a genuine revulsion over a movement that had deteriorated from biological utopianism into a campaign to destroy entire groups. For others who defected in the thirties and early forties, it was the shock of how Adolf Hitler applied eugenics. For America’s eugenic holdouts, it was only the fear of guilt by scientific association with genocide that reshaped their memories and guided their new direction.

Edwin Black, War Against the Weak

Eugenic belief presupposes that there are superior and inferior ehtnic groups; it also holds that both physical and metaphysical characterisitcs of an individul or “race” are determined by the quality and character of their ancestory. Whatever chaacterisitcs a person or groups is born with are predetemined and permanent: no amount of social amelioration can change a persons's circumstances. …. Once thought of as “good science”, the tenets of eugenics have since been shown to be baseless and without merit from either a scientific or humanistic point of view.

Brian Regal, Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia

Request for Dispute Resolution

I concur that the discussion on the appropriateness alternative medical sidebar is not productive, but I think we need to concentrate on how it would be possible to build consensus. I'd like to make a clear statement of my position to avoid confusion: I believe that we should remove the sidebar labeling eugenics as pseudoscience. I would argue against categorizing eugenics as pseudo-science because it is unarguable that humans are genetically changing over time, and that we could, at least in theory, direct that genetic change in some directions that we desire. R=h^2*s, a basic equation of quantitative genetics, means that any trait with (narrow-sense) heritable variation will respond to selection, no matter how ineptly that selection is applied. Now, surely much of the historical eugenics literature was really just racism masquerading as science, and therefore it is tempting to label eugenics as a whole as pseudoscience, but I think we need to be careful not to imply that humans are somehow exempt from the evolutionary laws that govern other species. While it may be appropriate to label eugenics as pseudo-science within a paragraph carefully discussing what is meant by that classification, I'm afraid that a sidebar classifying eugenics as pseudo-science will imply that taking the top 20% of tallest, most athletic, or most musically gifted humans would fail to produce a cohort of h^2*20% taller, more athletic, or more musically gifted humans in a casual readers mind. We know that a huge variety of human traits have robust heritabilities, and you can equivocate about what eugenics really is, but I think most people will come away believing that you couldn’t change quantitative traits in human populations through selective breeding even if you wanted to. I feel that I have done my duty to the community and presented my honest, informed opinion, and presented a shallow but not unrepresentative list of citations, and been met only with dismissive attacks which place my position beyond the window of debate. LarryBoy79 (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing dispute resolution could provide. There is no valid discussion whether eugenics is pseudoscience or not — simply a tangential diatribe that is being tacked on a valid discussion above. WP:DENYRECOGNITION and move on. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand that is your opinion, but that does not seem to be the position of everyone on this discussion thread of scientists in general. Unfortunately you are not a reliable, citable, source of what is or is not pseudo-science. I am entering into this discussion with good faith, as a member of the relevant scientific community, and have provided citations to show that my statements are in line with the statements of that community. It would surprise me, and the highly acclaimed members of the community who gave me my credentials, if I were advocating for a pseudo-scientific position. Given that you have never presented an argument or cited a single source, only consistently state your opinion that debate is impossible, I think a dispute resolution process may help us clarify how it might be possible to enter into a good faith discussion. LarryBoy79 (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Unless and until a concrete definition of "improve" can be put forth, such that one can say "genetically improve a human population" and all educated listeners would know exactly what is meant by it, I don't see how Eugeneics (which we must remember is an applied science, not a research field, which makes it a form of engineering) can be said to be a science. Is a population with a 100% rate of occurrence of Asperger's syndrome an improvement? That would mean higher IQs, increased focus on tasks, and a drastically increased rate of what we consider "geniuses". What about a 100% psychopathic population? No guilt, little emotional interference in decision-making, very low levels of fear. Are smaller, more agile humans with more efficient metabolisms an "improvement" over larger, stronger humans?

There's simply no way to see "improvement" in an objective light. So what does it mean? Without a concrete meaning, "Eugenics" can never be more than a term of art. To the extent that its proponents claim it to be scientific, it is thus a pseudoscience. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Is medical science real science or pseudoscience? Does it really improve health of patients or is that just a futile attempt to reach something that was not defined objectively? Health is the motivation and purpose of both eugenics and medical science. If you choose to label either with that pseudo label based on the objectivity argument, then do the same to both. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Real science, duh. It improves the health of patients in measurable ways, duh, and "Health" has an actual definition and even when there's a clear recognition that an even more concrete definition is necessary, the two in no ways contradict each other. Don't try to waffle me with this level of ignorance. It won't work. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Suddenly improvement appeared to be just fine. Are you trying to hint that health of future generations would become somehow unmeasurable if their existence had something to do with eugenics? ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"Improvements to X" (especially when it's actually "improvements to X ins measurable, objective ways") and "improvements" are two very different things, and if you can't comprehend to obvious and fundamental difference between the two or even begin to form a coherent response to anything but the semantics of my comment, then you should not be editing an encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You try to push the idea that "improvements to X in measurable, objective ways" would be somehow impossible or out of question in eugenics. This is kind of funny, actually. Removing any serious hereditary disease from a population would be a great success, but you say it would be impossible to measure. I wonder how Chinese do it then. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow. You just ran "eugenics" into pubmed, and decided that anything that mentioned it at all must be proof that eugenics is science. That is likely the worst source I've ever seen pubmed-indexed — and I have to repeat what Mpants at work said: if you can't see what nonsensical arguments you are peddling you should not be editing an encyclopedia.

Also, your argument is flawed, cystic fibrosis seems to have helped against plague, and sickle-cell anemia is tied to malaria resistance. The world isn't as black-and-white as eugenics makes it out to be.

Now I suggest you stop being disruptive because you have still not presented a single valid source, and are wasting other people's time. Intentional disruption may lead to being blocked. Carl Fredrik ^talk 23:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Theoretically (in a decidedly non-scientific sense)? Sure, anything's possible. Theoretically (in a non-scientific sense) monkeys could fly out of your butt in 15 minutes. I'd say the odds of both are about equal, because, well, we've seen how people react to any attempt to tell them when, how, and under what circumstances they can fuck. And if you think the Chinese government is anything resembling an authority of biology, you are out of your mind. About the only relationship they have with science is by endorsing every pseudoscience that worms its way into their field of view.

Finally,without sources explicitly saying' "Eugenics is not pseudoscience" to contradict the myriad sources saying "Eugenics is pseudoscience", you've got no leg to stand on whether you're right or wrong (you're wrong, BTW). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

P.S. The source doesn't even say the Chinese government is calling it eugenics, it just does that itself. And this is from 1994. Just, lol. Wow... So we're relying on the scientific authority of an anonymous Freedom News reporter from 1994. Wow... Carl Fredrik ^talk 23:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Haha, it just keeps getting better, this is Freedom News from today on Infowars being banned from twitter:

It’s clear that America is under a coordinated, communist-influenced techno-tyranny ATTACK that’s systematically taking down all pro-Trump, pro-America content.
[…]
We are in a state of war. We are under an intense, coordinated attack being run by hate-filled, anti-America tyrants and co-conspirators. They have decided that no one will be allowed to speak unless they support the globalist destruction of the American Republic.
— http://www.freedom.news/2018-08-14-infowars-down-alex-jones-issues-red-alert-coordinated-treason-attack-on-america-under-way-right-now.html

(Bolding is theirs) Carl Fredrik ^talk 23:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh shit... I didn't notice the authorship. LOL ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe of interest could be artificial selection which comes with its problems like genetic disorders related to inbreeding and lack of genetic diversity, etc. In any case, to portray it as working science or as successful, we'd need reliable sources discussing successful large enough experiments (which is unrealistic for ethical reasons). Meanwhile, multiple reliable sources call it pseudoscience (I see 5 books in a small list I have which I could take the time to list if necessary). —PaleoNeonate – 21:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

So here are some related sources (not all necessarily using "pseudoscience"):

• Stanford, Craig; Allen, John S.; Antón, Susan C. (2016). Biological Anthropology: The Natural History of Humankind (4th ed.). Pearson Education. p. 88. ISBN 9780134005867. - A movement that waned in the US before the start of WWII, but a term that still often arises "usually from critics, any time when human genetics intersects with broader social issues".
• Shermer, Michael (2015). The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People. Henry Holt and Company. p. 315. ISBN 9780805096934. ... was based on the pseudoscience of eugenics ...
• Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. p. 431. ISBN 9780226051826.
• Regal, Brian (2009). Pseudoscience: A critical encyclopedia. Greenwood Press (ABC-CLIO). p. 59. ISBN 9780313355080.
• Birx, H. James, ed. (2010). 21st Century Anthropology: A Reference Handbook. SAGE. p. 69. ISBN 9781412957380. Clearly, cultural behavior was the product of the environment, and was independent of biology. Other interesting pages: 77, 250, 379-382, 669, 887, 941, 961-968
• Birx, H. James, ed. (2006). Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Eugenics: SAGE. p. 871. ISBN 9780761930297.

—PaleoNeonate – 15:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Re PaleoNeonate: I'm all for letting authoritative sources decide the issue. If you could compile a small list we can set about seeing where the plurality of voices comes down. I just don't want to explore this route when no one else is will to make an effort at arriving at consensus. LarryBoy79 (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

LarryBoy79 for a notification to work, you need to add your signature in the same edit - if you add a ping to an edit without resigning, the recipient won't receive it. Pinging PaleoNeonate. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Pinging ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. To a large extent I agree with your argument, and think it is a generally in line with the scholarly literature. However, it is, in my own opinion of course, primarily an argument that a eugenics program, as a government policy, is unethical rather than an argument that it is unscientific. In other words there may be no objective way to say that Khan, from the Star Trek universe, is an improvement on humans in general. However, recognizing this does not mean that a person like Khan could not be produced by selective breeding (I'm not actually that familiar with him and whether he possesses magical sci-fi abilities).

I would like to touch on the notion that has been expressed several different times that selecting for a trait, such as intelligence, may inevitably also result in selection for a second trait, such as  psychopathy . This argument depends on the existence of genetic covariance between the traits, and there has been extensive investigation into whether the the genetic covariance matrix is stable under selection. IIRC generally it has been found that selection can easily break up genetic covariance, so that one could select for intelligence and against psychopathy (assuming that both traits exist in a meaningful way, which I wouldn't generally concede) and increase intelligence while decreasing psychopathy. So, your particular example is probably counterfactual, which I think is important.

Of course, some traits are intractably linked, such as hight being perfectly negatively correlated with shortness, so that it may be the case that it may be impossible to simultaneously 'improve' two traits, but this seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

Finally, equating Aspergers with psychopathy is offensive, and potentially harmful to people with Aspergers. But, perhaps this is all beside the point. The real issue is simply what credible sources have to say about whether eugenics is pseudo-medicine or pseudo-science or whatnot. If you could add texts supporting your notions to the list of noteworthy statements it would be appreciated. LarryBoy79 (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@LarryBoy79: Aside from my comment being a lesson in how to ping another editor (copying their signature is not even close to the best way to do it), I want to say that you have fundamentally misunderstood literally every detail of everything I said. Every response you formed is to an argument I never made and every time you attempted to characterize anything I said you were so badly mistaken that it's difficult for me to even understand how you could have come to such a mistaken impression. I have little to say in response to your comments here, because your comments here are so far removed from anything that's been mentioned in this discussion so far.

Finally, equating Aspergers with psychopathy is offensive, and potentially harmful to people with Aspergers. This, in particular is possibly the worst offender. How you could read my comments and come away with the impression that I was "equating" the two is simply unfathomable to me. It's an ignorant comment on other levels as well, but you can be forgiven for not knowing that I have been diagnosed with borderline Asperger's syndrome myself. If you want to contribute to this discussion, you really need to work on your ability to read and comprehend what others are saying. I'm not trying to be rude, but your comments here are just completely off base and entirely out of left field. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be offensive, I simply saw 100% Psychopathic and 100% Aspergers juxtaposed, and thought you were equating them, but you are right that the juxtaposition didn't really imply an equatement. Again, I wasn't trying to give offensive. I would, however, appreciate it if you would instruct me on how I've misread the rest of your comment, as I thought you were being quite helpful and reasonable. Upon reading it yet again, seems to me to be an argument that because we cannot objectively say what an improvement is, then we cannot call eugenics a science. How does that mischaracterize your argument? LarryBoy79 (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

For starters, you claimed my argument was actually about ethics, when I never touched on ethics. My argument does not require any ethical component, nor does it imply an ethical component. The ethical arguments against eugenics are a separate issue.

For another thing, no-one has brought up the possibility of secondary characteristics in this discussion until you mentioned it, claiming that it had previously been mentioned. It's also worth pointing out that your claim about there being "extensive research" into genetic covariance between traits is overly simplistic and a gross overestimation of our knowledge of genetics. Yes, there's been a lot of research, but we know comparatively little. We may very well also breed either psychopaths or aspies by breeding for intelligence. We simply don't know enough about what genes are associated with intelligence but not other traits that are generally considered negative to select for such genes.

As for selecting for a trait while selecting against a covariant trait, that's not nearly as simple as you suggest, nor is it anywhere near a certainty that we could do it.

Your argument here (and indeed, the entire argument for eugenics being a science) rests on the infallibility of the notion that the relationship between genes and traits is a linear, 1-to-1 relationship. But we already know for a fact that this is not true. Some traits are associated with specific genes, some with specific combinations of genes, some with specific combinations of genes which are themselves associated with related or sometimes entirely unrelated traits. Some traits are associated with combinations of genetic and environmental factors, and finally, some traits have only ever been linked conclusively to environmental factors. Some traits are themselves dependent upon other traits.

It also treats traits in a binary manner: it presumes, for example, that high intelligence can be selected for, when we already know that a tendency to intelligence as a genetic trait is a spectrum, and we can't say with certainty whether or not the furthest end is also inclusive of other traits, no matter what we choose. It may be that Asperger's syndrome is merely the collection of inescapable secondary traits associated with high spatial and problem-solving intelligence traits.

Now, your summary in this comment touches upon my earlier point, but it does it little justice. Science must be empirical, but the goals of eugenics are inherently subjective. Furthermore, eugenics is -at best- an applied science, the same as selective breeding. Eugenics is thus, by definition, not a science, nor is it possible to back it with science as the goals are subjective.

You even culled a (rather small) list of quotes below without considering them... I mean, one of them claims that because scientists once embraced eugenics as science, than means it must be science. Well then, phrenology must be science, too. As is Acupuncture and holistic medicine and many, many other pseudosciences that were once embraced by the mainstream. It's a completely logically void argument, regardless of the source. Science is not a popularity contest. It doesn't matter how many scientists like a certain idea, if it is shown to be pseudoscientific (as eugenics has been, thanks to developments in genetics), then it is a pseudoscience. One might be shocked to see such a simplistic and irrational claim from an actual anthropologist.

Of course, the quote is taken out of context. The logic contained with it is not that of Marks, but of the supporters of eugenics whom he was channeling in the introduction to a chapter on the subject. This is made rather clear when Marks then goes on to spend 6.25 pages describing the failures and inherent problems of eugenics. Sure, he doesn't then label it a pseudoscience, but that's because, in his clear view, it's an applied science, a point you might recognize from my comments.

I'm not going to go into more detail, this comment is long enough. But I will say this: advocating for changes to whitewash this article is not a good sign, and we need to follow the sources, not find sources that agree with us. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to concentrate here on whatever may be productive avenues of discussion, and I don't think entering into a debate of the principle of how phenotypes change in response to selection is likely to prove productive. I'll just briefly invite you to read about the stability of something called the g matrix and see if you believe it is fair to characterize the scholarly discussion as extensive.

But, I do care about the charge that I am attempting to whitewash the article. This is emphatically not the case. I believe the article is being whitewash as it now stands, rather than the very minor change I propose (removing the sidebar). Labelling eugenics as pseudo-science exculpates scientists from the greatest sin they have committed. This argument is made extensively by others, and I'm simply advocating that we follow the advice of the people who have spent a great deal more time thinking about his then you or I have.

As for my characterization of Marks, I think the idea that science is whatever scientist do is rather reasonable, and Jonathan Marks certainly wouldn't be the first to advocate it, nor would he be the last. Obviously the important bit in Marks quote is the "was". I am honestly unsure whether he would say that eugenics “is” a pseudo-science, which is why I included both quotes from him, to establish context. His opinion, I suppose, would depend on what modern eugenicists do. But, may I point out that Edwin Black, who is already quoted in the main article, claims that “After Hitler, eugenics did not disappear. It renamed itself. What had thrived loudly as eugenics for decades quietly took postwar refuge under the labels human genetics and genetic counseling.”. Unpacking that claim in the context of whether to label eugenics as pseudoscience is problematic, since it is not clear whether eugenics would neccisarily refer to eugenics before hitler, or could include human genetics and genetic counseling, which Edwin Black claims is eugenics by a new name.

Finally, I am not providing only three sources because I can't provide more, but because I don't want to be the only person attempting to engage with the scholarly literature fending off a bunch of people who dreg up throwaway lines form articles that aren't really addressing the question of whether eugenics is or was scientific. I would love it if you engaged with that literature and gave me your take on it. LarryBoy79 (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the idea that science is whatever scientist do is rather reasonable Most scientists fuck. Therefore, fucking is science, and thus the most accomplished scientist in the history of mankind is some well-hung drunk with a medical history that reads like a comprehensive list of STDs repeating a pick up line in a bar somewhere for the five thousands time. Think on that. I may or may not respond to the rest of your comment later, but you should really read WP:CRUSH and sealioning and understand that the other editors here have read them multiple times and know how to respond to them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your arugument really helps clarifies the demarcation problem. Philosophers generally use the principle of charity to argue, and I would advice you to adopt this norm. The debate of what consitutes the boundary between science and pseudo-science, generally called the demarcation problem, is firmly within the auspices of a philosophical problem. I'm not a philosopher, and I don't have a dog in the demarcation fight, so I'm not going to defend Marks or anyone else solution to it. I'm just saying Marks solution seems reasonable to me. You may think it is trash, but I would ask you direct your scorn towards Marks and not me.

You claim that “The logic contained with it is not that of Marks, but of the supporters of eugenics whom he was channeling...” is simply false. Are you perhaps looking at a pdf and think that the block quote given on page 85 is continuing onto page 86? It does not. It ends at the bottom of page 85. The logic and argument are Marks words. I'd quote both pages here, but I think that is too much. Interested parties will simply have to grab a pdf themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryBoy79 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You claim that “The logic contained with it is not that of Marks, but of the supporters of eugenics whom he was channeling...” is simply false. Are you perhaps looking at a pdf and think that the block quote given on page 85 is continuing onto page 86? It does not. You need to read both the source and my comment far more carefully. Seriously. I don't care what's on page 85, I didn't read it (today, anyways). I started reading the book at page 86, and read it in context by reading what prefaces the quote and continuing to read to see what is said in authorial voice afterwords. So I found further quotes such as "While Princeton's E. G. Conklin was layoing out the platform of eugenics without the evangelical seal of other scientists in Heredity and Environment, he was nevertheless thoroughly uncritical of its central assumptions of racial rankings, immigration restriction and feeblemindedness." Remember this is Marks, we're talking about here. Further, Marks goes on to quote Thomas Hunt Morgan as saying "our familiarity with the process of social inheritance is responsible, in part, for a widespread inclination to accept uncritically every claim that is advanced as furnishing evidence that bodily and mental changes are also transmitted." and "competent specialists are needed to push forward scientific investigation- since other methods have signally failed." and finally "I believe that they will not much longer leave their problems in the hands of amateurs and alarmists, whose stock in trade is to gain notoriety by an appeal to human fears and prejudices-an appeal to the worst and not to the best sides of our nature."

On the next page (87), Marks then steals Morgan's "Amateurs and alarmists" quote to lament the lack of divide between their ideas and those of scientists. He goes on to quote Morgan at further length outlining much the same problems with eugenics I outlined above. Later in that same page, Marks states "In 1916, two scathing articles by the prominent anthropologists Franz Boas and Alfred Kroeber outlined the weaknesses and exposed the nonscientific nature of the eugenics movement. (emphasis added). Remember, these are Mark's words, not mine, and not a quote.

Following this and a brief aside on Nazi Eugenics, we get to the section "WHY EUGENICS FAILED" on page 89. In it, Marks describes essentially the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT I MADE ABOVE. I'll reproduce the whole thing here, for you if you need it. But if you're going to try to convince me that Marks claims in completely literal terms that Eugenics is real science and then goes right on to spend 6.25 pages contradicting that very statement, you're doomed to failure, because I've actually read Marks, and I can understand from the context when he is writing literally and when he is channeling the voices he intends to argue against. And while we're on the subject, the second quote you provided from that book is saying that claims of genetics being behind social inequality is pseudoscience: You'll also note that one of the central tenets of eugenics is that genetics is behind social inequality. So thanks for unwittingly providing a quote that contradicts your position. It's appreciated.

For future reference, I own the Marks book in question. Let me know if you need to know what he says about anything else. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@User:PaleoNeonate. I've added some of your references to the list below. I don't see any reason not to add them all and will do so as time permits. Thanks for your contribution. LarryBoy79 (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Alternative medicine sidebar

{{Alternative medicine sidebar|fringe}} was put near the top of this article, then moved to near the bottom with the rest of the nav stuff, then removed. The issue I have is that this article is in the navbox, and it's standard operating procedure to thus put it on this page somewhere. Multiple people (self included) object to having it near the top. So, absent some compelling WP:IAR rationale, it either needs to be put back near the page bottom, or this article needs to be removed from the navbox. I lean toward the latter, since it's a poor fit, topically. Alternative medicine refers to medical beliefs and practices, not to politicized "improving the race" (or "improving our race in particular") stuff just because it sometimes incidentally involves something medical, like forced sterilization.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Eugenics has nothing to do with Alternative medicine, so I'm going to cut the Gordonian knot by removing this article from the sidebar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The sidebar is an alternative and pseudomedicine sidebar. It has been on this article for years. That people get grumpy and that proponents of bunk science take offence and move it around is frankly not relevant. Medical make-belief doesn't categorize between "harmless" and "vile" nonsense, they're all bunk and the fact that one has unsavory political implications does not mean it shouldn't be included. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The question isn't whether eugenics is "pesudo" or not - as it most certainly is pseudoscience - the question is does it have anything whatsoever to do with "alternative medicine' as that phrase is understood today, and the quick and easy (and accurate) answer is , no, it does not. It is not an alternative to normal medicine - no one went to a eugenicist to get cured of their lumbago -- it's a pseudoscience. Therefore the alternative medicine sidebar is inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant, because it is a pseudomedicine sidebar. Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And eugenics is not a "pseudomedicine". It never claimed to cure or treat anything. Please stop blurring the distinct difference between medicine and science, or between "pseudoscience" and "pseudomedicine", they are not the same thing at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The proponents of the historical eugenics movement had definitely-pseudoscientific ideas of race, class etc. superiority, and no actual understanding of the relevant genetics. (It works to allow us to breed faster horses, so we can use the same techniques to breed more "intelligent" and generally "superior" humans.) That pseudoscience was used to underpin behaviour ranging from useless to grossly-criminal. I suggest that labelling the entire eugenic movement "pseudoscience" is at least arguable. But I wouldn't call it medicine. And the "alternative medicine" sidebar isn't really helpful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge — Which is why this is not an only-alternative medicine sidebar. It includes alternative medicine, pseudomedicine and medical conspiracy theories. Pseudomedicine is simply pseudoscience in medicine. You're reraising a month old discussion to make an unrelated point. If we're fine that eugenics is pseudoscience there should be no issue to include the medical conspiracy theory and pseudomedicine sidebar which also includes scientific racism. There is no better sidebar, and these are all excellent examples of pseudoscience in medicine. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Why do you think that "we're fine" while it is obvious that we are not fine? Francis Galton coined the word eugenics and gave a strict definition that eugenics is a science. Such a definition is wise, because it excludes all unscientific methods. Some other after him misused the word in some unscientific practice, but that is not a fault of Galton or eugenics. It is only a fault of those who misused the word. Analogously a quack who pretends a medical professional does not convert medical science into pseudoscience. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Please do not respond tangentially. See WP:FRINGE. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You called it fringe, like you didn't know the difference between a definition of a word and a theory, although you should. "A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or other set of symbols)." Calling eugenics as a pseudoscience is a lie right against the definition. Francis Galton is certainly the reliable source for the definition of the word he coined. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No, he is not. Words change their meaning. We get our definitions from contemporary reliable sources. Produce some of those (both for and against the pseudoscience label), or this discussion is simply a waste of time. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No. Words do not change their meanings, although people may attempt to do that. I remember someone redefining words, yes that was in Nineteen Eighty-Four as redefining words was a politically correct way to control thoughts. Redefining words that were already well and strictly defined means destruction of words. I am fully aware of the fact that there are plenty of words that have existed long time without good definitions, either because such definitions were not originally created, or because mankind forgot them. For example racism is one ill-defined word, and only approximations of its meaning exist. And that was just one example. But, eugenics is not one of them. It was strictly defined by the same gentleman who coined the word. The required literature has survived and may be used as a reference. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That is utter ignorant nonsense.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

lol… no… Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• As for the sidebar, I do agree that eugenics is an odd inclusion in the series on "alternative medicíne, pseudomedicine and conspiracy theories" - as is scientific racism. I don't really see how either of those fall under that label, there are other more series of articles where these topics would fit better. In so far as eugenics is related to medicine it is not really pseudo (for example selective birth control, forced sterilization, screening for birth defects etc. are all actual medicine, not pseudo-medicine - even if one may find their use objectionable). The problem with eugenics is not that it is scientifically dubious (though it has sometimes been that, for example in Galton's definition since the idea of "improvement" cannot be scientifically defined, but not always) but that it is ethically dubious.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Point taken – Had it only been an ethical philosophy, it would only be dubious — but the reason eugenics is pseudoscientific is specifically because it purports to be scientific. Any attempt to decrease disease and improve health among the population — based upon a pseudoscientific perception of "good genes" — is pseudoscience & pseudomedicine. I.e... Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that not all practices that can be considered eugenics operate with such a pseudo-scientific concept of "good genes". There isn't really any consensus about what "eugenics" actually is, but I would say that for example screening for Downs syndrome and offering abortions to those who are pregnant with a foetus that has Downs is clearly a form of eugenics - but it is not pseudoscientific or relies on pseudoscientific reasoning, it merely lets parents decide what they find to be a "desirable" child. There are forms of eugenics that purport to provide scientific basis for determinng who is and isn't desirable, and those are clearly pseudscientific, but that is not a necessary part of eugenics, which is simply the practice of politically managing fertility and mortality of a population. It is a political practice, not a scientific discipline.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Who said anything about good genes? Not Galton. In 1905, Wilhelm Johannsen introduced the term 'gene'. That was one after Galton defined eugenics. Are you whacking a strawman? Please don't do it here. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If such concepts as "improvement", "advantage" or "disadvantage" sound too cranky to you, then the whole medical science becomes pointless and pseudoscience for you, because how could you say what is illness if you cannot even use the concept that illness and health are based on. Someone is sick and about to die, but how do you know that death is a disadvantage? Is curing the illness an improvement? Ok then back to reality. I know and probably you know too, that it is better to be healthy than sick, vigorous than weak. That is the basis of medical science. That is also the basis of eugenics. Without that basis both medical science and eugenics would be pointless. If you don't know what improvement means, perhaps you should search for it. That is your problem – not a problem of anyone else. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

In terms of evolution "improvement" is what works, and what works is determined by success in the environment, not by a guess made by people. Case in point: sickle cell anemia, not a desirable trait by most guesses, except it protects against malaria and therefore confers evolutionary success. That is why the idea that improvement of a populations collective genome is possible by concerted efforts is inherently pseudoscientific.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

How do you go from a single potential error to "not possible"? Are all human endeavors somehow not possible because of potential errors? The only pseudoscience here is coming from you. 146.255.14.121 (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

That is not a single example, it is an example of a type of phenomenon. I'm not listing more examples here, in part because our sources do. Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I see a fair consensus that the 20th century eugenics movement contained a lot of racism and other pseudoscience - though some of it was fairly mainstream at the time. But, with all due respect to Maunus above, "the idea that improvement of a population's collective genome is possible by concerted efforts" is not inherently pseudoscientific. As Maunus correctly points out, it depends on the definition of "improvement". I hope it's not controversial to suggest that mitochondrial replacement therapy may indeed be generally agreed to be beneficial, and it falls within Galton's definition of eugenics. Given that, it doesn't seem useful to label all of eugenics as alternative or fringe medicine. As others have suggested, the sidebar should go. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It is beneficial for the individual, we do not know its potential effects on the population. The difference between the types of eugenics that are currently socially accepted and the one advocated by Galton was exactly that Galton presumed that it could be determined objectively at the population level, whereas today for both ethical and scientific reasons we only accept eugenics-type practices based on individual choice and consent, not on political decisions seeking to control the genome at the population level.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

As you say, specific types of eugenics are currently socially accepted, based on sound science and on individual choice and consent. Clearly, it is inappropriate to apply the labels of "pseudoscience" or "alternative medicine" to the entire concept of eugenics (however applicable it may be to large chunks of the eugenic movement). And the "alternative medicine" banner should go. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The template: {{Fringe medicine and conspiracy theories sidebar}} has been changed. Please comment, Richard Keatinge, Maunus.

Do you feel it is necessary to provide in clearer detail that "alternative" medicine is simply an undergroup to fringe medicine? Is the problem a conflation of "alternative" medicine and ethically dubious philosophies of phrenology, scientific racism and eugenics? We have strong sources to back up major ethical issues underlying alternative medicine as well.

Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Eugenics isn't alternative medicine, in fact it isn't really medicine at all. It is a social and political programme that uses actual scientific medical interventions for socio-political reasons.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

What about labeling it pseudo-history or pseudo-sociology? I think the most problematic claims of eugenics are the claims, like Watson made, that genetic diferences between peoples have a major impact on world history. I would be 100% behind a label of psuedo-history or pseudo-sociology if someone thought that was approprite. LarryBoy79 (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is really any support for any of those labels - since the historical or sociological claims are not necessarily part of eugenics (though clearly related). I don't think it is pseudo-anything really - just not a good or ethical idea as a social policy, and one that is often supported by or closely entangled with scientific racism, social darwinism and other pseudoscientific ideologies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Well said Maunus. Close entanglement is not identity. In view of this and the ongoing digressions below, I propose to remove the sidebar. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The current sidebar reads fringe, is eugenics not fringe? Maunus, Richard Keatinge? Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It is a fringe political programme.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

To me that seems to imply that being fringe medical ethics is enough to merit inclusion in a fringe medicine and medical conspiracy theories sidebar. My suggestion is we seek to broaden and fix the sidebar so that inclusion of eugenics is non-controversial. There is a need to identify the pseudoscientific undercurrents in such fringe theories. Most alt-med isn't by nature pseudoscience until you begin to imply that it is scientific or has been proven to do things that only science can prove it does. If acupuncture was only to make you "feel good" there would be no issue, but it is pseudoscience because it attempts to sell itself as effective as proven by science. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I have my doubts about broadening the sidebar to include all of eugenics. The trouble is that "eugenics" includes some genuine science and some genuinely effective techniques, some of which seem acceptable to modern ethics. Anyway, until an appropriate version of the sidebar appears, the sidebar should not be part of this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The sidebar does not need to be broadened, it already encompasses the topic. This is down to titling the sidebar in such a way that it does not confuse editors about what practice is a subgroup to the other.

As for accuracy, it is not in dispute. There is long-standing consensus that eugenics is pseudoscience, and we're not going to pretend that it has been ripped up here. The SPA and potential sock-puppets here have damaged the possibility of discussion, and I suggest we allow more input about the title of the sidebar before proceeding. Any action should be taken on correct grounds and a dispute of accuracy can not be said to be any rationale for change – because there is no such dispute. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we need a well-publicized RfC about whether to include this sidebar.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't think we do. I can see that I am outnumbered on the side wishing to include the sidebar. However, as this is a contentious article, any removal needs to be based on a proper rationale, reflecting the discussion. If we can come to terms why it is inappropriate, and not "inaccurate" — I see no problem with removing it. I think this is very important to avoid letting the SPAs and trolls get the upper hand.

My rationale for keeping the sidebar is to properly link fringe medicine or fringe biology topics such as scientific racism and phrenology with eugenics. The reason this falls under the same sidebar as altmed is because these also rely on the rejection of science, or even the same approach to science that eugenics has — such as that of the philosophy of "holism" — totally divorced from and essentially unrelated to science. It is much like eugenics in that it becomes pseudoscience upon being deemed scientific and upon implementation. For eugenics "being science" is a central part of its definition, which de facto makes it pseudoscience, and this discussion was settled here long ago — eugenics is pseudoscience. Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I also have the impression that the sidebar is relevant, unless we had a better alternative. —PaleoNeonate – 14:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Removing the sidebar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think the discussion above about whether the article should include the "alternative medicine" sidebar has reached a conclusion, and that the conclusion is that the sidebar should be removed. The following outcomes favor its removal:

• A simple majority of editors favor its removal. Editors who have argued in favor of its removal include me, SMcCandlish, LarryBoy79, Nikolas Ojala, Richard Keatinge, and Maunus.
• In the discussion about the sidebar, most of the arguments in favor its removal haven't received a response.
• The majority of the sources listed above regard eugenics as biologically feasible, although many of them also say that it's a bad idea for ethical reasons. Contrary to MjolnirPants' argument that LarryBoy79 is confusing eugenics with selective breeding of animals, all of these sources are discussing these principles as they apply to humans.

It seems clear from the direction of the discussion on this page that the sidebar is going to be removed, but I think it's important to be as clear as possible about how consensus favors that outcome, to make sure it isn't added back. Deleet (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep discussion centralised per question or risk seeing it all shot down. The above mentioned sources are not supporting of your conclusions and have major issues as reliable sources (WP:RS). Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm just adding that Deleet's claim about me is obvious bullshit as evidenced by the very link he included: I never mentioned animals and anyone with an IQ over 60 can understand that in that context, I was referring to selective breeding of humans (which is not eugenics itself, but the method of pursuing eugenics). Keep pushing that White Supremacist POV, Deleet. I'm sure it's not going to get you indeffed anytime soon. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CRISPR

Some guy in China recently used CRISPR to modify CCR5 to attempt to confer HIV resistance. It's genetically modified twins. This should be included as an example of eugenics right? Alexandria Poklonskaya (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

No. It does not fall within the classical definition of what is meant by "eugenics". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Why?

Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐγενής eugenes 'well-born' from εὖ eu, 'good, well' and γένος genos, 'race, stock, kin')[2][3] is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a human population.[4][5]

You're obviously wrong. Oh I see so it's not classical eugenics because it's genomic. So cheap dishonest irrelevant sophistry then got it. Alexandria Poklonskaya (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It may not be classical eugenics, because new methods were used, but the definition of eugenics by Francis Galton did not include any definition of methods. "Eugenics is the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage." So, that recent Chinese example is obviously eugenics. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to concur with Poklonskaya and Ojala on the scope matter. However, WP can't call this particular case eugenics (or "something" eugenics or eugenic "something", like "neo-eugenics") without reliable sources calling it that. There are two ways to get at this: either find RS that specifically call this case [something-]eugenics, or find RS that classify and entire range of such cases [something-]eugenics and RS that classify this particular case in that range. Wikipedia is not in a position to just arbitrary apply a very contentious label to something on our own; that's original research. This is a debate that has been had about 1000 times with regard to labels like "neo-nazi", "racist", and everything else listed at MOS:WTW, so I am not presenting any kind of iffy or questionable argument; it's a cold, hard fact about our core content policies, especially WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

In answer to the original question, if CRISPR is used to create people with the purpose of improving either the individual's well-being, or the population's well-being, it is by definition eugenics. Here is a classic definition from Leonard Darwin, past president of the Eugenics Society of England: "Eugenics is the study of heredity as it may be applied to the betterment, mental and physical, of the human race." (Edwards, 2004).. Thus, although some may morally object to using CRISPR, as the previous commenters said, it is obviously a form of eugenics if the person who uses it aims to improve the welfare of the children that result.[[User:Drexelbiologist (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)DrexelBiologist]]

Short description and white supremist (sic)

The source says that it has origins in white supremacism but it may be an overgeneralization to just label it as such, especially in the short description. —PaleoNeonate – 15:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I concur. I understand what the IP was trying to get across, and tried to help, but it may need some tweaking. Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the short-description, and reordered the first para of the lede to demonstrate connections to white supremacism without being quite as absolute. However, if the original IP can find stronger academic sources to strengthen the language I would support that. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Me too, —PaleoNeonate – 15:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Coming back to this: other than origins in Nazi policies (on the basis that some people were genetically superior, others inferior) and Social Darwinism (seeing eugenics as hastening natural selection), other early origins would be in the US with Henry Goddard (who believed that the Kallikak clan had degraded morally and socially after a "degenerate tavern girl" was impregnated) and supported the alcohol prohibition... There was degenerationism belief; then there were also the sterilizations in US mental institutions (and a similar movement in Europe based on Mendel's inheritence). There also was the early 1800s work of Galton also with a focus on race and Plato's idea of improving stock like for livestock/artificial selection... And today the term eugenics is sometimes even used in the context of sperm selection in banks by women for artificial fertilization; and early disease detection in embryos to allow parents to decide to keep it, or to attempt early medical interventions. So the short description should probably not mention white supremacism, which seems to only be one of the contexts, although very notable. Including it would be possible but in a much longer sentence for context... One very clear thing is the ethical debate which exists for all aforementioned topics, probably this could be included in the form of "controversial" or such. In at least one encyclopedia, half of the eugenics article is the "ethical considerations" section. —PaleoNeonate – 01:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Implementation Methods Section

Implementation methods sections needs further elaboration as the whole section is derived from one book by Lynn (2001). Samarthsbhatt (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)