D
On 12 Feb 2006 21:52:41 GMT, DZ <[email protected]> wrote:
>Fisher's book "The Genetical Theory of Natural
>Selection", has been called the deepest book on evolution since
>Darwin.
According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher
Fisher was "an ardent promoter of eugenics."
In The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Fisher " presented a
theory that attributed the decline and fall of civilizations to its
arrival of a state where the fertility of the upper classes is forced
down. Using the census data of 1911 for Britain, he showed that there
was an inverse relationship between fertility and social class.
Therefore he proposed the abolishment of the economic advantage of
small families by instituting subsidies (he called them allowances) to
families with larger numbers of children, with the allowances
proportional to the earnings of the father."
Between 1929-1934, Fisher played a prominent role in the campaign by
the Eugenics Society for a law permitting voluntary sterilization. The
Society believed that this should be viewed as a right, not as a
punishment. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ronald_Fisher one
can find the opinion that Fisher "was more into positive eugenics than
negative eugenics, i.e. he thought that those of good birth should
have lots of children (needless to say, he followed this through!) but
without the nasty reigning in of the breeding of the unwashed masses."
It is unclear whether Fisher ever served as a paid consultant for the
Bitish tobacco industry. In any event, he "advocated that correlation
does not imply causation in the relationship between smoking and lung
cancer." (I can say he was wrong about this, but I still can't find
a bookie that will allow me to place bets on horse races after they've
ended.)
IUnless the fundamentalists succeed in rewriting the definition of
science, scientists should welcome the opportunity to discuss and
debate evolutionary theory in a public forum. If spirited public
debate over evolution had started a long time ago, perhaps Clinton and
his handlers would have realized that his rampant womanizing was
a violation of a near universal taboo against infidelity. This, in my
opinion, was the primary reason why so many Americans initially turned
against Clinton, Gore, and the Democratic Party and placed their trust
and faith in Bush and the Republican Party..
I only wish that astrobiologists would enter the fray. I think the
public would be entertained by hypotheses regarding the origins of the
building blocks of life and how life might expand beyond its planet of
origin. Religion, after all, suggests that God (the Creator) is
external to life, a supernatural being who "lives" outside this world
and periodically invades it in a miraculous way. I'm not suggesting
that astrobiology be given exaggerated prominence in order to win
potential converts among those who think that evolutionary theory with
its emphasis on "chance" represents a huge threat to their religious
beliefs. However, to the extent that astrobiology is a legitimate and
serious scientific discipline, airing the views of astrobiologists
might serve to reduce some of the public hostility towards science
(and, therefore, some of the appeal of politicians who exploit this
hostility.
II'm also not suggesting that scientists should be venerated.
Basketball players play basketball. The opinions of the best of them
on non-basketball related subjects should be taken with a grain of
salt. Fisher was a genius whose work laid the foundations for
population genetics. That doesn't mean that everything brilliant
scientists say on subjects outside their fields of specialization
shouldn't be seriously questioned.
(
I
(
>
>Fisher's book "The Genetical Theory of Natural
>Selection", has been called the deepest book on evolution since
>Darwin.
According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher
Fisher was "an ardent promoter of eugenics."
In The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Fisher " presented a
theory that attributed the decline and fall of civilizations to its
arrival of a state where the fertility of the upper classes is forced
down. Using the census data of 1911 for Britain, he showed that there
was an inverse relationship between fertility and social class.
Therefore he proposed the abolishment of the economic advantage of
small families by instituting subsidies (he called them allowances) to
families with larger numbers of children, with the allowances
proportional to the earnings of the father."
Between 1929-1934, Fisher played a prominent role in the campaign by
the Eugenics Society for a law permitting voluntary sterilization. The
Society believed that this should be viewed as a right, not as a
punishment. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ronald_Fisher one
can find the opinion that Fisher "was more into positive eugenics than
negative eugenics, i.e. he thought that those of good birth should
have lots of children (needless to say, he followed this through!) but
without the nasty reigning in of the breeding of the unwashed masses."
It is unclear whether Fisher ever served as a paid consultant for the
Bitish tobacco industry. In any event, he "advocated that correlation
does not imply causation in the relationship between smoking and lung
cancer." (I can say he was wrong about this, but I still can't find
a bookie that will allow me to place bets on horse races after they've
ended.)
IUnless the fundamentalists succeed in rewriting the definition of
science, scientists should welcome the opportunity to discuss and
debate evolutionary theory in a public forum. If spirited public
debate over evolution had started a long time ago, perhaps Clinton and
his handlers would have realized that his rampant womanizing was
a violation of a near universal taboo against infidelity. This, in my
opinion, was the primary reason why so many Americans initially turned
against Clinton, Gore, and the Democratic Party and placed their trust
and faith in Bush and the Republican Party..
I only wish that astrobiologists would enter the fray. I think the
public would be entertained by hypotheses regarding the origins of the
building blocks of life and how life might expand beyond its planet of
origin. Religion, after all, suggests that God (the Creator) is
external to life, a supernatural being who "lives" outside this world
and periodically invades it in a miraculous way. I'm not suggesting
that astrobiology be given exaggerated prominence in order to win
potential converts among those who think that evolutionary theory with
its emphasis on "chance" represents a huge threat to their religious
beliefs. However, to the extent that astrobiology is a legitimate and
serious scientific discipline, airing the views of astrobiologists
might serve to reduce some of the public hostility towards science
(and, therefore, some of the appeal of politicians who exploit this
hostility.
II'm also not suggesting that scientists should be venerated.
Basketball players play basketball. The opinions of the best of them
on non-basketball related subjects should be taken with a grain of
salt. Fisher was a genius whose work laid the foundations for
population genetics. That doesn't mean that everything brilliant
scientists say on subjects outside their fields of specialization
shouldn't be seriously questioned.
(
I
(
>