Does the truth always need to get out?

[Dauphin]

Genetic Stupidity.

Stupidity should be cured, says DNA discoverer


Fifty years to the day from the discovery of the structure of DNA, one of its co-discoverers has caused a storm by suggesting that stupidity is a genetic disease that should be cured.

....

If you are really stupid, I would call that a disease," says Watson, now president of the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory.

.....

Watson, no stranger to controversy, also suggests that genes influencing beauty could also be engineered. "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Richelieu
They should burn the study and forget about it.
I wonder if this poll would have taken another turn if you had mentioned that black people were the ones favored by that gap.

You stole my line!

[monkspider]

Watson rocks.
The "should all girls(and boys) be pretty if we have the genetic means to make it so?" question is an interesting thread topic itself.

[Inverse Icarus]

the truth doesn't have to get out. control of the truth is what keeps most governments in power.

would i like the truth 24/7? ideally, yes. i'd like to know whats going on and not be lied to.

but the truth is harsh. there are some things i shouldn't know, and probably don't want to know.

as outplayed as it is, this quote from a few good men rings true.

Col. Jessup: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you dont talk about at parties, you don't want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

[Sava]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
I don't think results of science should ever be squelched because we don't like the results. I think it is very important we use the scientific method and go with the best data we have.

But I still don't think there shouldn't be equal rights/opprotunity for everyone. Even if they are genetically inferior.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by UberKruX
the truth doesn't have to get out. control of the truth is what keeps most governments in power.

would i like the truth 24/7? ideally, yes. i'd like to know whats going on and not be lied to.

but the truth is harsh. there are some things i shouldn't know, and probably don't want to know.

as outplayed as it is, this quote from a few good men rings true.

Col. Jessup: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you dont talk about at parties, you don't want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

This text does not illustrate what you say. It describes a man who accepts the truth and acts according to what he thinks is good for his community. And an other man who refuses to see the truth, but does take advantage nevertheless of the consequences resulting from the actions perpetrated by the man accepting the truth.

But truth about events does not fall into the same category than scientific discoveries. States need some privacy, as individuals do, but limiting the propagation of knowledge would put an end to its extension. Fortunately we are not on this trend.

[tinyp3nis]

I allways like to play mind games with "what if this and that", mostly the stuff I think about is even less probable than this is. Unfortunately many times I end up with the result: I don't know. So many good points against and for lying. Banana it is.

[Ben Kenobi]

loinburger:

What about Mendel's thumb?

Report the results. If they have misgivings about the results of their experiment, then don't conduct one. Once they do the results, they should publish.

If they lie, or fudge the results, their researches will hinder others, especially if it becomes accepted knowledge.

[Q Classic]

before publishing the results, i'd suggest that multiple other studies be undertaken, with different staff/scientists and even with some varying methodologies to ensure the results aren't through some mistake.

if it were found to be a mistake, it ought to "have never taken place"; if it were the truth, there's not much one can do but publish.

[Az]

A research studying the inherent mental differences will do very little to promote the research for the smart gene (see thread), since its' criteria is phenotypical, and not certain genes, and how do they influence people. What it will do is create ethnic tension.

Therefore, it is rather clear that this sort of research would be done by biased scientists, and wouldn't be trustworthy material anyway.

[Comrade Tribune]

Publish the Truth.

There is absolutely no excuse for fake science.

In fact, if a scientist knowingly publishes fake results, he should get punished -hard.

[JohnT]

My gut feeling is to say no. With increased racial intermingling and the gap correspondingly decreasing as the centuries pass, today's "fact" is already known to be tomorrows fiction. So why report something that won't remain true?

But then I think about the above arguement and realize that I could just as easily say "yes, release today" because in the long run it won't matter.

The really interesting thing is that Stefu's question is just stuffed with the notion of his superiority in regards to this issue - it assumes that he will be the one declared smarter. If it were the other way around, ala if it were determined that black people had a 10% advantage over whites, would you want the news released?

Edit: Richeleau and Stuie got to my conclusion first.

[Comrade Tribune]

The number of advocates of dishonesty both on the Right and Left is *amazing*.

An obvious symptom of decline and decadence.

No way can the betterment of humanity be built on lies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It always has. Such as (for example) 'our lives matter', when cosmically speaking they really don't.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Such as (for example) 'our lives matter', when cosmically speaking they really don't.

This is an *assumption*, not a scientific lie.

The major religions assume the entire cosmos was built for the sake of us. You can´t scientifically disprove them.