So according to this, all those laypeople who disagreed with eugenics, social Darwinism, icepick lobotomies, and Tuskegee were just wrong.https://twitter.com/DanielleMuscato/status/893337024261914624 …
-
-
How about phrenology and 'race science?' They weren't debates about applications of science.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Danielle ain't threading that needle tho
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The divide you're claiming exists has always been extremely vague, if not flat-out illusory. (plenty of "science" isn't very scientific)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
science isn't immune from the context of its time. it's not an infallible institution. look no further than modern evo psych for evidence
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not sure what you mean. Eugencists weren't considered scientists?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You probably want to read The Descent of Man. 'Darwinian theory' isn't what you seem to think it is.
-
Be warned, this is the guy who constantly insists Gertrude Himmelfarb is a "good historian" so I doubt he's up on Darwin historiography
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's not what scientists said at the time. They said it was science.
-
Sure, what constituted "science" in 19th century different than today. But that goes against your point, not for it.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Geology rejected continental drift and asserted it was wrong scientifically...Italian ASTRONOMERS said Galileo wrong...fixed stars proved it
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.