Well, there is this huge misconception about evolution making animals "better", dispelled very well in Stephen Jay Gould's "Full house". It's a very comforting thought, that we're "better" then apes, but it also usually ends up with people trying to rationalize racism-we saw this in the eugenics movement. There is no objective better or worse when it comes to biology, only success and failure.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
What role do popular misunderstandings about biology and genetics play in modern, everyday conceptualizations?
What role do popular misunderstandings about biology and genetics play in modern, everyday conceptualizations of human differences and “race”? What role has the misuse of science played in guiding/influencing the process of “naturalizing difference”? What could one do to dispel these misunderstandings? (i.e. are there better ways to understand and analyze the geographic distribution of human genetic and biological variation than “race”?)What role do popular misunderstandings about biology and genetics play in modern, everyday conceptualizations?
Well, there is this huge misconception about evolution making animals "better", dispelled very well in Stephen Jay Gould's "Full house". It's a very comforting thought, that we're "better" then apes, but it also usually ends up with people trying to rationalize racism-we saw this in the eugenics movement. There is no objective better or worse when it comes to biology, only success and failure.laura mercier
Well, there is this huge misconception about evolution making animals "better", dispelled very well in Stephen Jay Gould's "Full house". It's a very comforting thought, that we're "better" then apes, but it also usually ends up with people trying to rationalize racism-we saw this in the eugenics movement. There is no objective better or worse when it comes to biology, only success and failure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment