We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Eugenics is "science" and it still lingers although for another few years, until those who experienced it first hand have all died out, it is out of favor.
Although, the science of eugenics has basis, the morality of using it to engineer people is a different matter and the sociopathy of wanting to speed the demise of the undesirables is evil endemic to those who consider it their place to rule.
The key characteristic of science is that it is amoral. You can use it to build a nuclear reactor or a nuclear weapon. You can use it to save millions of lives from disease or to arrange the industrial-scale killing of whole peoples.
Scientism - the belief in science - is simply an ideology and, as such, is deserving of the same skepticism and criticism to which we subject any ideology.
Last but not least, one would have hoped sophomoric enthusiasm for technocracy would have evaporated by now. I'm trying to remember who it was that stated a world run by experts given free reign to implement their ideas would be a nightmare.
Nothing in this article speaks about science as the systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. In every example provided, evidence of failure would have caused the rational person to offer a new hypotheses for testing. Folks who believe stuff without evidence are not practicing science they are practicing religion.
Before you can test a hypothesis, you have to have a standard to apply. In a lab that's simple: how close to the experimental result is your prediction?
In society, though, who defines the standard? "The greatest good for the greatest number" isn't quantifiable, or even terribly meaningful as far as I can see. Similarly "maximum pleasure" and "minimum pain." Is the best society one of uniform mediocrity or one in which you have a few "great" people: Christian saints or if you prefer, Nietzsche's Supermen? Please people now or break a few (a lot of) eggs for the great socialist omelet?
Tyson hasn't bothered to think through what he's talking about, or else he's dreaming that everybody agrees with him on what a good society looks like.
The professor discovers Marx. And as so many before him, take up that which has been many times refuted by men of thought.
The planners pretend that their plans are scientific and that there cannot be disagreement with regard to them among well-intentioned and decent people.
However, there is no such thing as a scientific ought.
Science is competent to establish what is. It can never dictate what ought to be and what ends people should aim at. It is a fact that men disagree in their value judgments. It is insolent to arrogate to oneself the right to overrule the plans of other people and to force them to submit to the plan of the planner. Whose plan should be executed? The plan of the CIO or those of any other group? The plan of Trotsky or that of Stalin? The plan of Hitler or that of Strasser?