>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?
Cheers, Rob. ............................................................................ ............................................................................ ... http://www.dcu.ie/~comms/hsheehan/lysenko.htm
Who was Lysenko ? What was Lysenkoism ?
Read up, Charles. If you don't have time for David Joravsky or Zhores Medvedev on Lysenko, that URL above should disabuse you of your hardy illusions. Michael Pugliese