
How the Cold War Defined Scientific Freedom - longdefeat
https://newrepublic.com/article/153383/cold-war-defined-scientific-freedom
======
roenxi
Between this and the pterosaurs it has been a great day for quality articles.

There is a tension when talking about 'freedom' that reminds me of the
anecdote (unsupported by evidence afaik) that converts to a religion tend to
be more extreme than people born in to it, because those born in to it know
that there are a whole heap of stipulations that are best ignored or treated
metaphorically. Eg, when the holy book says deliver death and destruction to
the heretics what it means _bad_ heretics and not your friendly atheist
neighbor living the next door down.

The word freedom has similar problems. Obviously there is a form of radical
freedom where everyone gets to steal stuff and live in a Darwinian free-for-
all. Nobody important means that when they say things like 'commitment to ...
freedom'.

This observation has implications. When a political idea is expressed as an
absolute, that is for rhetorical not practical purposes. The ideological
structure that gives society form is in constant need of testing and debate,
because finding what a word means in practice is _not_ looking it up in a
dictionary. The long struggle of women to assert freedom over their own bodies
and lifestyle is an interesting study on how that style of thing plays out -
before the advent of modern medicine (eg, the pill, improved surgical
techniques, understanding of the mechanics of conception and childbirth, lots
of stuff to do with transexuals, etc, etc) some of those freedoms were
actually impossible and inconceivable as a practical issue.

In light of that any claim that 'American science had uniquely transcended
politics through ... freedom' is clearly propaganda and hokum. The meaning of
all the words in that sentence are, in context, political questions.

We can be thankful when our politicians stick to evidence based policies, even
if we don't like them. I'm hopeful everyone is in favour of that in principle.

~~~
coldtea
> _There is a tension when talking about 'freedom' that reminds me of the
> anecdote (unsupported by evidence afaik)_

If we're talking about anecdotal evidence, this has been seen time and again.

It's also easy to see why logically: keeping a religion you've inherited from
your parents/community is the default, low energy, mode. You just do the
motions. Getting into one from outside requires extra energy and conviction.

~~~
Smithalicious
That's an interesting way to look at it, as a kind of selection bias. Only the
most fanatical people become converts.

------
saagarjha
> Whereas Western scientists, following Darwin, believed that genes shaped
> organisms and were changed by the mechanism of natural selection, Lysenko
> rejected genetic science and argued that environmental conditions determined
> biological characteristics. (Lysenko thought, for example, that exposing
> seeds to cold could make the plants that grew from them more resistant to
> winter weather.)

This is the premise behind epigenetics, is it not?

~~~
jostmey
Not really. Lysenko's ideas sort of imply that you can "will" biological
changes. A giraffe can "will" a longer neck in its offspring by stretching its
neck to reach the top of the branch. Nothing could be farther from the truth
about how biology works (as far as science understand biology). Evolution,
genetics, and epigenetics are really more a process of luck and trial-and-
error at the molecular level.

~~~
LifeLiverTransp
Yeah, and luck cant be tinkered with- aka the dice loaded, for example by
having lots of dice throws by succes in habitat.

------
HNLurker2
And chess competition (Spasky vs Fischer 1972)

