> used as a scientific basis to justify many attrocities
That's the operating phrase though. Throughout history, atrocities were justified using whatever was seen as the higher authority at the moment - the will of a deity, the words of a prophet, the decree of a king, appeal to destiny or legacy, and yes, science too. Especially in the early XX century, when science was kicking into gear, and delivering miracles left and right for everyone to see - it was easy tool to abuse to justify whatever the leaders wanted or needed to.
Doesn't mean the science itself is at fault here.
I didn't read up much on phrenology so I won't comment on it, but RE eugenics, I see it as a mix of good and bad ideas that sprouted in an environment full of aforementioned hatred and otherwise devoid of moral and ethical boundaries[0]. I feel it's more of a historical coincidence of fledging science and then-contemporary zeitgeist, rather than an innate feature of science. The resulting effect is that even the word itself - eugenics - casts a long shadow on research in fields like genetics, medicine and economics. There are whole subsections of those fields you can't discuss in polite company, 'lest someone rounds your thinking off to "eugenics" and therefore paint you as "nazi". This is a bad outcome.
> Easier to trust more fundamental aspects of math and physics, but even in those fields, on the bleeding edge many things can change.
That's true. There's this thing though. I can't put my finger on it, so it might be just a benefit of hindsight, but there's a notably different feeling when you reason from current state of knowledge in a correct way, vs. when you abuse it to justify whatever self-serving or atrocious idea you want. The atrocities committed under the label "eugenics" feel very much like the latter. But again, this may be just hindsight, and we may all be vulnerable to a new flavor of that mistake today.
--
[0] - Notably, some of which were developed only after those events. E.g. the Nazis weren't the only ones willing to do brutal, lethal scientific experiments on POWs, and, to my understanding, the consensus and principle to not do that was achieved in response to the atrocities of WWII.
Yes I didn't mean to say it was at fault, I was mostly bringing to light that _at the time_ the people doing these things thought they were being scientific about it, or convinced themselves of it. I agree with all your points in the follow up and think about it in very similar ways.
That's the operating phrase though. Throughout history, atrocities were justified using whatever was seen as the higher authority at the moment - the will of a deity, the words of a prophet, the decree of a king, appeal to destiny or legacy, and yes, science too. Especially in the early XX century, when science was kicking into gear, and delivering miracles left and right for everyone to see - it was easy tool to abuse to justify whatever the leaders wanted or needed to.
Doesn't mean the science itself is at fault here.
I didn't read up much on phrenology so I won't comment on it, but RE eugenics, I see it as a mix of good and bad ideas that sprouted in an environment full of aforementioned hatred and otherwise devoid of moral and ethical boundaries[0]. I feel it's more of a historical coincidence of fledging science and then-contemporary zeitgeist, rather than an innate feature of science. The resulting effect is that even the word itself - eugenics - casts a long shadow on research in fields like genetics, medicine and economics. There are whole subsections of those fields you can't discuss in polite company, 'lest someone rounds your thinking off to "eugenics" and therefore paint you as "nazi". This is a bad outcome.
> Easier to trust more fundamental aspects of math and physics, but even in those fields, on the bleeding edge many things can change.
That's true. There's this thing though. I can't put my finger on it, so it might be just a benefit of hindsight, but there's a notably different feeling when you reason from current state of knowledge in a correct way, vs. when you abuse it to justify whatever self-serving or atrocious idea you want. The atrocities committed under the label "eugenics" feel very much like the latter. But again, this may be just hindsight, and we may all be vulnerable to a new flavor of that mistake today.
--
[0] - Notably, some of which were developed only after those events. E.g. the Nazis weren't the only ones willing to do brutal, lethal scientific experiments on POWs, and, to my understanding, the consensus and principle to not do that was achieved in response to the atrocities of WWII.