ok so if science follows an idealogy
Read what I say for F sake...
Its not science who follow an ideology its an ideology that follows science.
im a pro science/pro progressive dude
No you are not. If you were you would accept all scientific disciplines and not just the one that suits your believes.
What happens is just that people will use science for their ideology
No, what will happens is that people will make science with an ideology and therefore potentially create war crimes and crime against humanity like what happened during the 3rd reich. This is why we must prevent the scientific process to be used unethically or to justify problematic ideology. This is why we must keep ethical values in science and this is therefore why we can't separate science from politic.
Like, never.
Except its not. I dont care if nazis support the earth being a spheroid, it just is.
This is not an ideology that was promoted politically. What was promoted is eugenism. This is when your ideologies are promoted in this domain by nazi that you need to start asking yourself questions.
@Logiko I never said those ladies were part of the elites. Elites typically don't use idiotic methods to push their narrative since they can just tell people what to believe and people do.
Ok
And well sure, nazis cherry picked the science they could use to further their ideology. And ignored or undermined inconvenient science.
They also did their own science.. through completely unethical means. Like I said, progress is a moral action, it doesn't mean that this is an action used with ethic or absence of it.
We are a social species, it means that we must keep people safe. Therefore we must also keep the scientific process ethic unlike what did those Nazis. To do that, we must keep doing science with ethical value and therefore we can't separate science from politic.
Then you understood i was talking about other users opinions here and not mine?
I'm sorry I'm tired, what was the subject here ?
You need translators to teach them english.
Yes, and there are people and structures for that.
Yes, refugee children put in regular classes pretty much dont get anything that is being taught in regular lessons. In the school I worked at, they sat in regular classes most of the time and just left for special german classes once to twice a week. Most regular teachers arent qualified to deal with this situation
Then the problem lies in the structure that are still not well adapted enough.
Depends on the art and the artists intend
Well.. fair. But you won't really see a lot of artist saying that they don't want to do something that creates strong emotions (what I mean by disruption)..
Eugenics is about selective breeding, not doing abortions in the case of disabilities, which majority of people opt for if they know about the disability.
Eugenic is an ideology that is meant to improve the quality of the human gene through artificial selection at birth.
The problem is not abortion (that the choice of the parents). The problem is the ideology that those with conditions should not be seen as people worth living.
ANd yes, the choice is not Dawkins to make, its the parent's. Affirming that there is an immorality in the fact of not choosing abortion when we know that a child will be born with down's syndrom is purely eugenistic.
The point was to make you understand that researchers with a lack of value about a subject can be completely bias about their discipline and it can influence their researches and work.
Richard Dawkins is - for the moment - acclaimed by liberal scientist, american's skeptics and the liberal part of sceptics in France because he opposes religion and consider that science should not be linked with politic and values.. But those who take a wider look at the scientific process (the meta skeptics - those who are skeptics of the skeptical discipline and social science researcher) and the vision that those people have of science and its relation to politic know that Dawkins and his current scientific friends are heading toward the wrong way of the political spectrum... and will - if they don't stop radicalizing - start to promote conservative and antiscientific ideologies in the future.
This shouldn't take more that a decade now. (you can already see a few american skeptics and a lot of french skeptics radicalize and becoming "anti woke" and against the "leftists lobbies"). This, added to the fact that there is a new wave of far rightist adopting the pseudoscientific values of evo psy, will create a wave of far right radicalized influencers that will have a freeway in the media to spread bigoted rethoric in the future.
But that can be countered if they start to look at their work with a critical eye and understand the importance not pushing politic and values out of the scientific process.