Is it okay to ignore scientific truths for social or political reasons?

Question

There are a host of examples where scientific inquiry has or might produce socially inconvenient or disturbing results. Genetic predisposition to sexual orientation and differences in racial attributes are two sensitive examples. Is it better to have a “don’t ask” policy to preserve social harmony, or should we look to find the “truth” and let the chips fall where they may? What are the dangers and advantages?

Answer 1

No, science should never be ignored but how the information is used and abused should be questioned and debated. However its important to realise since science is not objective especially when it relates to social issues therefore the validity and objectivity of every study is questionable and should be questions. Questions in themselves can have social prejudices in them, answers can be looked at through a prejudicial lense. Therefore the danger present in this is rationales for social prejudice

Answer 2

The truth ( scientific or anything verifiable ) has an absolute value of its own. It is always a defense against charges of libel, slander or defamation.

If asked directly without ability to evade, one should tell the truth.

However, gratuitously publicizing truths is sometimes damaging with little or no offsetting advantage and can be pointless. A recent example is the question of whether the U.S. Congress should pass a resolution declaring that there was a genocide of Armenians by Turkey almost one hundred years ago. It would have no force or effect and, although widely believed to be correct, has current negative consequences for an important relationship between the U.S. and a NATO ally.

Greeting someone with the news that "You look even uglier than usual" might be factually correct but has hardly any chance of being other than unnecessarily cruel. "That new mole on your face is something that a doctor should look at" is, on the other hand, a similar action but one that has offsetting merit.

Answer 3

Just taking the two examples you gave, if we could actually find the marker gene for homosexuality, it would make some people more comfortable with it. Some people, of course, would ignore the scientific reports since it goes against their "faith". As far as racial attributes, (or gender ones for that matter), it's kind of a guess how things will come out. For instance, there is scientific evidence that one ethnic group(I won't say which so I don't get violated) is sexually active earlier than other groups. That would probably be offensive to a lot of people, but if used properly, would encourage education and counseling for this group at a younger age than others. And some things, like women's tendency to function better at verbal skills than mathematics, don't mean much because they aren't 100% across the board accurate. There are male poets and female mathematicians.


So, as with most questions of this nature, the real answer is "It depends".

Answer 4

No, you can not avoid scientific truths for very long. The best example recently is T.D. Lysenko, who believed in and promoted Lamarckian theory of evolution and led the USSR into greater hunger. Because it superficially make sense he got government backing and the disaster led to political problems throughout the government, not just in the science ministry.

Being discreetful or even deceitful about political, historical or economics truths (etc.) could have less dire consequences than scientific deceit but, oddly enough, most of the time people promote lies to also promote rabid nationalism, idiotic hates, lunatic fringe religions and so on.

Being unaware of the facts doesn't change them.

It is better to know and deal with the truth and not try to build a society on something fundamentally unsound.

Answer 5

The only danger to truth is that it makes the general populous less controlable. When people are free thinking and well eduacted, they are more likely to do things on their own than listen to the advice of others.

This, however, will never happen for the general public. People, as a whole, chose the path of least resistance when it comes to work. It is easier to have your morals chosen for you than figure out that complecated mess on your own. It is catagorically easier to have a blanket definition and decision for everything than to look at things on a case by case basis.

For example, the issue of abortion. It is easier to say "all abortions are bad" or "everyone should be able to do it" than to say "this particular case should have an abortion because it's a risk" or "she should not have an abortion because she should have thought of the consequences beforehand."

Ignoring the truth will not change it. Therefore, if one ignores it, they help neither themselves nor the rest of the population. Socially harmony cannot truly be acheived until people understand and accept the truth.

Answer 6

We should let the truth be known and let the chips fall. Dangers are the repercussions from those resentful of truths, which exists already and would only provide another venue. Advantages are enhancement of rational solutions to real problems.

Answer 7

I didn't even bother to read your extended question. The reason for that is your question. "scientific truth"? That in itself is a falllacy. There is no such thing as a scientific truth. Science is something that is constantly changing and being disproved. Without getting too deep look at the process of something becoming a science and then contrast to that of percentages that actually stay a truth. So, if you have belief keep it. Thats what's great about our country. Faith keeps us going. God Bless

Answer 8

Ignorance is bliss. Eve got kicked out of the garden after she gained knowledge.
But knowledge is power.
You can hide in the dark and ignore the truth or you can accept the facts and adjust your life accordingly. Its up to you.

Answer 9

If you are asking "is it OK to be racist because I believe that blacks are inferior" then the answer to your question is "no".