Reality-based conservatism

[nancylebov]

David Frum concludes that same sex marriage doesn't damage heterosexual marriage.

Is there anything else in American politics which is dependent on as weak an argument as opposition to same sex marriage? The war on drugs is based on a wild over-estimation of government power, but it doesn't quite have that weird "I'll make up a definition and insist that it's realer than what can be observed" quality.

Link thanks to nwhyte.

Comments

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Any recommendations for information about opposition to eugenics when it was popular? The only thing I've read is GK Chesterton's Eugenics and Other Evils, he was a journalist rather than a scientist, and I don't remember his arguments.

[ashnistrike.livejournal.com]

Steven J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man includes excellent coverage of the intelligence-related research around eugenics. Fact from this book that has stuck in my head for years: back when skull volume was assumed to be related to intelligence, "researchers" measured it by filling skulls from different races with grain. They stuffed the Caucasian skulls to the bursting point, but the African-American skulls very loosely... Good scientists questioned these methods even at the time, although much of the general populace was very willing to go along with the "findings" that supported their assumptions.

Watson (of the infamous Little Albert experiment) spent a lot of time arguing with eugenicists as well--some of his writings may relate to that. They may also demonstrate the degree to which he was a complete asshole, but support for eugenics was not one of his flaws. His quote about "Give me a dozen well-formed infants..." is from a debate on the topic.

That's what I can think of off the top of my head. I'm afraid all my literature on the topic is currently packed and in another state, and will be till August.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

There is a recent study that reports that Gould's evidence is historically unsound; a new investigation actually got out all of those skulls, remeasured their volumes, and found that the error was minimal, and that to the extent that there was bias, it was toward reporting slightly higher volumes for African-American skull than the new measurements indicated. The Wikipedia article on Gould's book sums it up as "In another study, published in 2011, Jason E. Lewis and colleagues remeasured Morton's skulls and reexamined both Morton's and Gould's analyses, concluding that, contrary to Gould's claims, Morton did not manipulate his results to support his preconceptions. To the extent that Morton's measurements were erroneous, they were in the direction opposite of his supposed bias."

The actual paper, if you want to read it (it has open access), concludes that Morton did have racist biases, but that his published data were not affected by them: "Science does not rely on investigators being unbiased “automatons.” Instead, it relies on methods that limit the ability of the investigator's admittedly inevitable biases to skew the results. Morton's methods were sound, and our analysis shows that they prevented Morton's biases from significantly impacting his results. The Morton case, rather than illustrating the ubiquity of bias, instead shows the ability of science to escape the bounds and blinders of cultural contexts."

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

Footnote: It was actually 308 skulls out of a sample of over 600; so not "all of those skulls."