Is the science of genetics today accurate and truthful, or is genetics just a bourgeois pseudoscience?

Is the science of genetics today accurate and truthful, or is genetics just a bourgeois pseudoscience?

Was Lysenko correct? Or just insane?

Attached: gene.jpg (500x240, 73.34K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1yUPYI0-p5U
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Belyayev_(zoologist)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vavilov

Lysenko was right and history will absolve him.

How was he right?

Thinking that science is politically motivated is postmodernist garbage.

Insane


Yes

I love to see the innocence in your eyes.

Of course genetics is accurate, however Lysenko gets a bad rep by liberal propagandists who want to claim the objectivity of science in bourgeois societies as opposed to the twisted, politically motivated science of the proletarian societies. Lysenko was actually somewhat vindicated in his theories through epigenetics in which he made some foundational strides, moreover he didn't deny genetics, rather he viewed it as more complex than a defining blueprint for a finished organism. Some of the crop strands he developed are still commonly in use today in fact.

What a godawful take.There are material class interests involved in science and to view academia (where scientific consensus is set) as outside of the ideological bourgeois society we inhabit is retarded. Psychological research for example is deeply involved with the pharmaceutical industry and has a long history of support from the CIA through fronts like the Human Ecology Fund.
What is considered science and what isn't, what research is conducted and what research isn't, what fields are funded and which aren't is deeply political.

I didn’t say that scientists couldn’t be ideologically influenced, I said that science could. If a scientist allows their political views to influence their conclusions then they are a bad scientist. It’s not that science isn’t objective, it’s that scientists sometimes let their views cloud their objectivity.

If this discussion is to go anywhere but baiting territory, there needs to be a clear distinction between "science - the collection of established facts about the physical world" and "science - the pursuits of academic communities". Genes being used boy organisms as instructions to build proteins is a scientific fact, whereas classifying and sorting people into racial categories based on genetic relatedness is a scientific pursuit that can contain facts but whose purpose is motivated by subjective political and personal reasons.

My argument is that which constitutes the body of 'science' is political and thus science is political, its not a case of 'biased scientists'. I'm not saying the material world is politically motivated or somehow unsound.

True, but then our attacks on pseudoscience should be based on its lack of scientific validity, nor some lofty hand waving dismissal about how x field is “bourgeois”. If you want to disprove genetics then you better have a degree in it and biology.

No one itt has claimed genetics or any other science to be 'bourgeois' or even pseudoscience, the contention concerns the political nature of the scientific discipline as such.

le false dichotomy thread

False dychotomy. It is pretty accurate and truthfull, but like all things that humans do, all human activity is ideological to a certain extend. Humans are ideological, not pure and perfect. Impure and imperfect things cannot create pure and perfect things.

kek. never change Holla Forums

It depends what you mean. Biology in general is perfectly coherent, but obviously there are political conflicts whenever people are being studied.

The fact that cult fronts like the Pioneer Fund exist doesn't make modern science wrong, though. Pomos criticize science because they are critical of the very concept of truth, a train wreck they still refuse to give up on.

The pioneer fund exists because polite liberal society doesn't want to spend money on research grants to study taboo topics.

Sure, but given how some of the results of their funding have actually been coherent, they can be considered useful idiots, especially when their most famous ilk are openly intellectually dishonest.

Chinese GWAS are going to mostly vindicate their sloppy adoption studies in a few decades.

They say that every time their half-assed analyses don't pan out. Causal relationships are already off the table so no one really cares anyway.

it's not about questioning results. It's about WHO frames the question WHO guides the scope, scale and direction of research and WHO controls the money to dictate all of this

I don’t believe in any science, and my life is great. I just sit at home, and smoke marijuana all day while watching TV.

epigenetics.

I don't think so. Race is obviously a pretty low resolution way of looking at the issue, but I think it's unlikely that some very significant genes and gene complexes won't be discovered in the coming decades.
From what I've read, this process is already underway and our knowledge of specific alleles is expanding exponentially.

Anti-science is just as politically motivated.

...

There is the scientific study of the meaningless biological stuff of genes on the one hand, and on the other is the superstition surrounding them which tells us that our personalities are predetermined by some kind of sacred text in some stupid, again meaningless, biological substance. The latter needs to be ruthlessly fought against, as its only function is to give a metaphysical justification for class society. Outside of our ridiculous beliefs about genes, there isn't much to get excited about if one isn't already interested in -actual- biology.

Science is biased by politics. That doesn't make it worthless.


He was neither. Superstition is a completely normal behavior in animals capable of learning. His problem was a lack of understanding of genetics and that the people around him didn't understand skepticism or had relatively little power.

Epigenetics is literally predicated on genetics. A lot of epigenetic functions involve DNA directly (just not the nucleotide sequence). The guy you're talking to is a retard.


Believing in genes doesn't require belief in genetic determinism. Believing in the central role of environment in personality development doesn't require disbelief in genetics.

looooooooooool

Why is that even a question? of course he was

Relevant:
youtube.com/watch?v=1yUPYI0-p5U

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

All "science" made under capitalism is bourgeois. If you believe in capitalist-rooted "science" you're a useful tool of the bourgeoisie. Only socialist Science is real Science with a capital S!

Anyone spoon feed me and tell me what Lysenko thought and why it is wrong?

Lysenko rejected Mendelian inheritance and Darwinian evolution. Basically he believed that traits acquired within an organisms lifetime would be passed down to it's offspring, sort of like Lamarck. He was a favorite of Stalin because of his peasant background so his objectively incorrect ideas were promoted as gospel for decades.
This obviously stifled Soviet research in this field. For example:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Belyayev_(zoologist)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vavilov

also
they cost an arm and a leg, but they sure look qt

Attached: Georgian_white_Russian_domesticated_Red_Fox.jpg (1085x724, 420.14K)

...

What if I told you there is an entire field called behavioral genetics and that temperament and personality appear to have significant genetic components.

Althusser on Lysenko

are you saying we can create an army of stalini?

they would inevitably end up killing each other until only one remained, so you might as well save yourself some effort and only make one

that pdf only has the first page, wheres the rest of it>?

Attached: 954.png (645x773, 35.46K)

Oh, I see the social constructionist zealots are peddling their trash again. It's not that politics is incapable of influencing the models scientists adopt; anyone who's read the history of twentieth century nationalism could see the truth of that. The problem that the social constructionists always ignore is that this inevitably results in bad science. Scientific models are supposed to describe and predict some aspect of reality; the injection of political ideology within invariably ruins the model. This is why Lysenko, for all the fact that there was later shown to be some small truth in his ideas, is pilloried within science: he knowingly subordinated describing reality to pursuing political goals.

The real reason for all this wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of the social constructionists is that many of the robust and highly precise models that scientists have developed are rather inconvenient for people who're prone to imagining the world in ways they'd like it to be. Far easier to cry "epistemology" and claim some contrived horseshit you cooked up to justify your own highly questionable worldview should be substituted. Never mind if it is predictive or how accurately it models reality. Lower than vermin, social constructionists.

Genetists have found that if your country respects Stalin chances are 100% you have slanted eyes.

Attached: kim.jpg (960x659, 84.92K)

Here's where the debate begins and ends you fucking vulgar neolibs: all reality, including everything we know and are conscious of, is brought into being by material forces, and material forces are oppositional in nature. Anything that opposes, struggles; and anything that struggles engages in politics. Therefore science can only be political.

Do you even deconstruction?

I bet you think the speed of light is gendered.

People in the Thid world is threatened by death squads, proper terrorists, proper paramilitary groups, the US military and its allies, islamic fndamentalists, drug cartelsm ,mobs… then al, of a sudden leftypol is bothered by 'muh genetics'. Do me a favor first world, fuck off and die.

Attached: fuck off and die.png (397x263, 6.3K)

ok

Attached: cb0ae8bf95109fd033a21d34a885e354a48370cc3b3dc0046b9235d88c41bc41.png (807x466, 532.55K)

hot air balloon brain wojack

He was wrong.
Genetics is pretty accurate.
You do know that Holla Forums isnt actually fucking correct when they screech MUH GENETICS, ITS SCIENCE, about their retarded pseudoscience right?
The actual scientific study of genetics doesn't say what reactionaries say it does.
Fuck, you're probaly just false flagging so you can screencap it and post LEFTIES DDENY REALITY MARX BFTO on Holla Forums aren't you?