The Telegraph here has the story about what was in my eyes one of the most abhorrent crimes ever committed by science…in this case the chemical castration of a brilliant mathematician and war hero only because his sexual preference went against what was considered the moral, psychiatric, medical and scientific consensus of the time, i.e. homosexuality was criminal and an act of miscreants. Homosexuals were viewed as a threat to society and thus had to be subjected to mind and body altering treatments. Scientists at the time all agreed and said it was necessary.
And people (skeptics) who challenged this “consensus” were immediately labeled immoral and were ridiculed. Sound familiar?
History is filled with many other similarly horrific examples…some very recent: lobotomy and eugenics to name just two. Others include human sacrifices to appease angry gods, or the burning of witches at the stake for storm-brewing. All were sanctioned by consensus.
These are the kinds of things that happen when science runs completely amok.
Today we have an elitist group claiming that global warming/climate-weirding is the consensus of the science and anyone who disagrees is equal to being a “Holocaust denier” and is immoral, or just plain ignorant.
Some zealots have even called for “Nuremburg-type trials” for the criminal “bastards who deny global warming”. Indeed an elitist group of green supremacists and political leaders are calling for global society to undergo an energy-lobotomy, one that would leave our global economy and society in a vegetable state.
Whenever the medical and science professions start appealing to the authority of consensus, then think back to the horrors this invariably has led to countless times in the past. History is filled to the brim!
Their claims to consensus only mean they are completely in the dark.
The consensus always came from a world view, not from science itself. These world views had a religious or ideological foundations not a scientific ones, though of course the science was used to back up the actions. This was obviously true in the examples you used, but the bad action doesn’t mean the issue was wrong.
Just because the treatment of this homosexual was wrong, doesn’t necessarily mean that homosexual behaviour is right. Likewise the medical removal of the clitoris on neurotic women in the last century and many more ignorant things.
Your first line has a link to the Telegraph report. Many have commented there regarding this as history. Some comments are very informative.
The CAGW “consensus” [and I am sorry I can’t provide a reference for this**] seems to have originated in a (London ?) PR firm used by someone (A. Gore or accomplice) that wanted a catch-phrase or sound bite to make their agenda sound unassailable. “The Science is Settled” fits this need. It is short and the resonance of “settled” and “science” works as intended. It is a short jump from this phrase to “consensus” but that has been so ripped apart it is now a joke. The only problem is the Greenies do not have a sense of humor.
___
**I read about this about 5 years ago but did not save it and haven’t found it again.
What a load on nonsense Pierre, really.
You simply cannot let an opportunity go by to get the facts wrong and accuse your opponents-du-jour of the most heinous acts while doing so.
Tuning was convicted under the 1885 Labouchere Amendment named after Henry Labouchere, an MP for the Liberal Party (not to be confused with US liberals) which in 1988 split up into Liberal Party and the Liberal Democrats (merging with the SDP). The latter is today’s Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s party.
BTW, the Labouchere Amendment wasn’t specifically agaist male homosexuality; it merely mentioned ‘gross indecency’ and it was then up to the judges to decide what was and what wasn’t.
To even suggest that the Labouchere Amendment in general and the prosecution of homosexuals in particular was the result of a consensus in science is utterly ridiculous. In 1952, the year of Tuning’s conviction’ the views on a wide range of subjects (ie, abortion, homosexuality, mental illness, etc.) was first and foremost influenced by the church and by the existing (political) establishment.
Even today, there are lots of First World countries with utter ignorant and religiously influenced politicians who publicly demand a return to the times of the Labouchere Amendment.
Not surprisingly (to anyone paying a bit of attention), most of these anti-gay feelings come from your side of the political spectrum. Mike Heath’s reply above (“Just because the treatment of this homosexual was wrong, doesn’t necessarily mean that homosexual behaviour is right”) is an excellent example.
G Mitchell,
Just as today’s views on CAGW are driven by politics. Delicious irony.
Let me repeat: That homosexuals were “ill” was the moral, psychiatric, medical and scientific consensus of the time. Skeptics at the time were denied a voice and marginalized. That’s precisely why eugenics, forced sterilisations, castration and institutionalization of homosexuals got so out of control.
This is what happens anytime religion gets adopted as science…or when a failed science turns into a religion. The parallels that this ugly 20th century chapter of science has with climate science today are nothing short of stunning. Only a fool would not see warning signals here. You cannot and must not ever shut down skepticism in science. Never! never! never!
You’d be well-advised to watch the following clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Umbn6ZBuE
In fact it’s worthwhile watching the whole segment. This is what happens when people “claim to have absolute knowledge”.
“…the assertion of dogma that closes the mind…”
“You simply cannot let an opportunity go by to get the facts wrong and accuse your opponents-du-jour of the most heinous acts while doing so.”
The lady doth protest too much it seems. Here’s the Nuremberg quote.
http://grist.org/article/the-denial-industry/
I could go on to state that some of the evidence in the original Nuremberg process was forged; for instance a transcript of a speech by A. Hilter. But forgeries are nothing new to warmist scientists. (coughGISScough)
did turing forgave the queen?
The Queen merely assents to pardons and so on. The United Kingdom is two Parliamentary Democracies
see Scotland and comprises most of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Therefore the monarch merely signs papers placed before him or her by the governments of the day.
There are many fashions in medical knowledge and people did the best they could with their limited knowledge as we do today with ours.
Which is precisely why skepticism has to be welcome, and not shunned.
This post explains why you remain at the top of my favourites list in 2014. Have a nice Christmas.
Thanks Mindert, Merry Christmas to you as well!