Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
Not quite. It was always controversial in the scientific world. It garnered more social,philosophical and political acceptance than scientific.
|
Eugenics was, at best, only a hypothesis. It had no experimental evidence to support its theory. The hypothesis lived because so many do not know the difference even between a scientific conclusion, a hypothesis, and a conclusion only from observation - also called junk science.
Another example: being cold is why people get sick - the common cold. No science makes that conclusion. A conclusion only made from observation. It is not even a good hypothesis. But that same reasoning is also why miracle cures such as Airborne, Coldeeze, and other miracle products exist. Too many still forget what was taught in school science - the difference between a science fact, a hypothesis, and a junk science conclusion.
Global warming has a valid hypothesis supported by simulations. Conclusions are confirmed by experimental evidence. That part is clearly understood. Questions that remain are how much - what are the numbers - and what else may also be contributing or reducing those numbers.
That is science. Eugenics never even got a good hypothesis. Conclusions were completely based only in observation - a classic source of junk science reasoning.