This raises some disturbing implications. Namely, that it’s possible for a scientific community to converge on something besides the truth.
This raises the question: in cases of disagreement which theory was correct? I get the impression that in most cases of disagreement, the current consensus is that the West was correct, but is that because the West was actually correct or simply because the West won the cold war?
This raises some disturbing implications. Namely, that it’s possible for a scientific community to converge on something besides the truth.
Why is this disturbing? Look at the history of science. A scientific community “converging” on something that turns out to be not true is neither unusual nor unexpected.
in cases of disagreement which theory was correct?
is that because the West was actually correct or simply because the West won the cold war?
In Soviet Union many scientists knew that e.g. Lysenkoism was a fraud, they were just afraid to speak openly, because they would be fired or put in prison. When the threat was gone, the problem fixed itself.
Which is an evidence for West being actually correct. Hypothetically the scientists in the West could be operating under different threats… but then their mistakes would be exposed by current scientists in Russia or China.
The beliefs about nutrition and diet were very different.
Another example, Geodakian’s theories were rather popular in the Soviet Union (for all I know they’re still popular in Russia), but he’s rather obscure in the West.
Can you say what they believed about nutrition and diet? Do you have some source on this topic? I think that there is a lot of diversity of opinion in America, between the nutritionists, the cardiologists, and the general public. So I could just as well declare those to be isolated communities. (and I wouldn’t be surprised if different countries have fairly different nutritional beliefs)
My understanding is that in the West, the question of the origin of sex is considered a great mystery. People like the Red Queen theory, but only because it exists, not because it is anywhere near proven. If the Russian view of Geodakian’s theory were similar, there would be the mystery of why the two communities hadn’t shared their hypotheses with each other, but I wouldn’t say that they held conflicting views. I have heard it claimed, though, that when there is only one hypothesis, it often ossifies into an established belief with evidence ever turning up. But I don’t think this example has gotten there yet.
An example from the “Distance from Harvard” thread is the study of language superfamilies in Russia. Westerners reject their techniques, but they don’t have any particular conflicting conclusion, only agnosticism. Indeed, they have come around to accept the specific conclusions that the American Joseph Greenberg came to by the same methods. From this, I feel very safe in saying that their criticism of Greenberg was wrong, and thus their criticism of the Russians is unfounded. But I’m not willing to endorse the Russians with any certainty, as they may be pushing their techniques too far. What they need are statistics telling they how far is too far.
Can you say what they believed about nutrition and diet?
I know that the Russians were recommending fish oil while the West was still advertising low-fat fish.
Do you have some source on this topic?
My memory growing up in the Soviet Union. In particular a spoonful of fish oil was the standard “disgusting but good for you” thing from children’s stories.
If the Russian view of Geodakian’s theory were similar, there would be the mystery of why the two communities hadn’t shared their hypotheses with each other, but I wouldn’t say that they held conflicting views.
Well, Geodakian’s theory has obvious non-politically correct (by Western standards) implications. For starters, it says that significant sex differences exist and that this is a good thing.
I don’t know much about the Red Queen theory, but for all I know it might have also had politically incorrect (by Soviet standards) implications, e.g., contradicting some official interpretation of dialectical materialism.
I know that the Russians were recommending fish oil while the West was still advertising low-fat fish.
That wasn’t what we now buy as “fish oil” in the West. We now buy, basically, Omega-3 fatty acids (EPA/DHA). The Russians fed their kids cod liver oil which is full of vitamins A and D and is useful in the winter if you live up north.
This raises some disturbing implications. Namely, that it’s possible for a scientific community to converge on something besides the truth.
This raises the question: in cases of disagreement which theory was correct? I get the impression that in most cases of disagreement, the current consensus is that the West was correct, but is that because the West was actually correct or simply because the West won the cold war?
Why is this disturbing? Look at the history of science. A scientific community “converging” on something that turns out to be not true is neither unusual nor unexpected.
Ask reality :-)
In Soviet Union many scientists knew that e.g. Lysenkoism was a fraud, they were just afraid to speak openly, because they would be fired or put in prison. When the threat was gone, the problem fixed itself.
Which is an evidence for West being actually correct. Hypothetically the scientists in the West could be operating under different threats… but then their mistakes would be exposed by current scientists in Russia or China.
What other cases do you know? This is the only one I know.
The beliefs about nutrition and diet were very different.
Another example, Geodakian’s theories were rather popular in the Soviet Union (for all I know they’re still popular in Russia), but he’s rather obscure in the West.
Can you say what they believed about nutrition and diet? Do you have some source on this topic? I think that there is a lot of diversity of opinion in America, between the nutritionists, the cardiologists, and the general public. So I could just as well declare those to be isolated communities. (and I wouldn’t be surprised if different countries have fairly different nutritional beliefs)
My understanding is that in the West, the question of the origin of sex is considered a great mystery. People like the Red Queen theory, but only because it exists, not because it is anywhere near proven. If the Russian view of Geodakian’s theory were similar, there would be the mystery of why the two communities hadn’t shared their hypotheses with each other, but I wouldn’t say that they held conflicting views. I have heard it claimed, though, that when there is only one hypothesis, it often ossifies into an established belief with evidence ever turning up. But I don’t think this example has gotten there yet.
An example from the “Distance from Harvard” thread is the study of language superfamilies in Russia. Westerners reject their techniques, but they don’t have any particular conflicting conclusion, only agnosticism. Indeed, they have come around to accept the specific conclusions that the American Joseph Greenberg came to by the same methods. From this, I feel very safe in saying that their criticism of Greenberg was wrong, and thus their criticism of the Russians is unfounded. But I’m not willing to endorse the Russians with any certainty, as they may be pushing their techniques too far. What they need are statistics telling they how far is too far.
I know that the Russians were recommending fish oil while the West was still advertising low-fat fish.
My memory growing up in the Soviet Union. In particular a spoonful of fish oil was the standard “disgusting but good for you” thing from children’s stories.
Well, Geodakian’s theory has obvious non-politically correct (by Western standards) implications. For starters, it says that significant sex differences exist and that this is a good thing.
I don’t know much about the Red Queen theory, but for all I know it might have also had politically incorrect (by Soviet standards) implications, e.g., contradicting some official interpretation of dialectical materialism.
That wasn’t what we now buy as “fish oil” in the West. We now buy, basically, Omega-3 fatty acids (EPA/DHA). The Russians fed their kids cod liver oil which is full of vitamins A and D and is useful in the winter if you live up north.
So did the Americans.
Interesting. He seems to have Wikipedia entries in several languages, but not in English.