Jump to content

Talk:Scientific racism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is CRT a political or intellectual movement?

[edit]

It says at the top of the page: ""Race theory" redirects here. For the intellectual movement and framework, see Critical race theory."

I thought CRT was a political movement more than an intellectual one, although of course it has both political and intellectual aspects. Your thoughts would be most welcome. Polar Apposite (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an interdisciplinary academic framework for analysis, as explained in the well-sourced article Critical race theory. Like several other academic areas (e.g., environmental science, epidemiology) the conclusions of CRT research can often lead to changes in policy and have political consequences. NightHeron (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of James Watson?

[edit]

James Watson can probably be included in the 'After 1945' section, with sources like this and books. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading title

[edit]

"Scientific racism" implies that there is scientific evidence that some races are superior to others. There is not. I recommend a change from "scientific racism" to "pseudoscientific racism" or even "biological racism." Thank you. 71.221.194.121 (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, that is its common name in reliable sources (which do not give it any credence as science). Wikipedia doesn't invent new terminology. See WP:COMMONNAME.Acroterion (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Biological racism" sounds worse than the current title. For good or bad, racist differentiations were within the realm of acceptable scientific views during the 19th century through at least the 1920s (the publication of the infamous Robert Yerkes WW1 U.S. Army test results), though there were also dissenters (Franz Boas etc). Rejected scientific theories are not necessarily the same as pseudo-science; our article on phlogiston theory calls it a "superseded scientific theory"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following your excellent example of phlogiston theory, why not "Scientific racism theories"? As the scientific racist theories were naive scientific theories based on assumptions and unsound reasoning, superseded by scientific developments (in this case the application of rigourous statistical reasoning and current genetic theory).
The difference with the phlogiston example is that historical and modern scientific racist theories have subsequently been supported by naive or mendacious pseudo-scientists (and more widely by non-scientists). I think that difference is adequately covered in the article by the paragraph (and main articles) about The Bell Curve etc...
Another problem is that not all the historical views described in the article were held by their proponents (even at the time) as scientific theories, but were more political, religious, philosophical, psychological, sociological, or historical interpretations. While most do indeed claim a scientific method, a few are simply racist theories making no appeal to science; their appearing under the banner of "scientific racism" is sloppy, and biased science bashing. For some other historical views it is a bit of a stretch, even if we allow for some overlap between science and the more rational parts of philosophy, sociology, psychology, and what is called "political science". Given the generality of the theories presented in the article then perhaps "Racist theories" or "Racial theories" might be a better title? And perhaps a clearer delineation should be made between those that claimed a scientific method and those that didn't. CorsacFoxWiki (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hunter

[edit]

Please check this carefully. The indicated source may not be a publication of the surgeon of that name, but of a namesake. Stilfehler (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. After checking the source, it does seem to be the same individual. But Hunter's hypotheses about skin color don't seem to fit the definition of scientific racism, so I've WP:BOLDly removed the short section. Generalrelative (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Limited coverage of monogenism and bias

[edit]

The article provides very little coverage of monogenism, as exemplified by scientists like Thomas Henry Huxley. Most of the information focuses on polygenism, much of which was not considered scientific even at the time. For instance, On the Geographical Distribution of the Chief Modifications of Mankind (1870) was a significant monogenetic work. Another issue with the article is its absolutist stance that anyone supporting "scientific racism" also advocated racial supremacism, which is not accurate. Huxley, for example, rejected race-based slavery in Emancipation – Black and White (1865).

In addition, it should be more clearly defined when this concept can be described as a superseded scientific theory (19th/20th century and earlier) and when it must be categorized as pseudoscience (21st century). For example, I find this phrasing better: "Scientific racism is a superseded scientific theory now regarded as pseudoscience." In today's "racial realism" there is an intentional rejection of scientific standards, whereas in the past this was not the case—because such standards did not exist. Pantarch (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]