>>> rws at comedu.canberra.edu.au 02/05/01 01:34PM >>>
G'day Charles,
>I'd say Lysenkoism is a pretty small mistake ( nobody's perfect) and an
>exception to the general rule in the context of the enormous body of valid
>natural science done by Soviet scientists in physics, chemistry, natural
>history/biology, geology, anthropology, mathematics, etc. Sputnik was no
>fluke. It is as if the only name remembered in discussing English
>paleontology were "Piltdown".
I don't think Piltdown Man wasted as many resources and killed as many people as did the Lysenko saga, Charles! Lysenko had every right to be wrong (indeed, I believe there's still some argument about cultivation, experience and their permeation of the reproductive cells going on down the road at the Australian National University) of course, but the system (ideationally one of necessarily experimental revolutionism and materially one of a hungry nation, undergoing rapid industrialisation, ruled by one saviour, such that scientific method gave way to personal fiat) into which his ideas became flesh, as it were, made sure there'd be hell to pay. First for scientists who disagreed, and then for everyone who was to starve as a consequence.
No?
((((((((((
CB: I don't think the analogy of Piltdown is exact, but, it gets at the idea. On balance, I would say that Soviet science saved more Soviet lives than it lost. So still, Lysenkoist mistakes are not characteristic of Soviet science as a whole, theoretically nor in practical results for the Soviet People. It is very misleading to always leap to mention Lysenkoism as typical of Soviet scientific history. If you want a more comparable one in terms of lives lost, Stephen Jay Gould has an essay on the great British biologist Fisher claiming publically and polemically that cigarettes don't cause cancer on behalf of the cigarette companies, but hardly anybody knows that , and they wouldn't think of pointing to it as typical of British science.