Russia’s science and higher education ministry has dismissed the head of a prestigious genetics institute who sparked controversy by contending that humans once lived for centuries and that the shorter lives of modern humans are due to their ancestors’ sins, state news agency RIA-Novosti said Thursday.

Although the report did not give a reason for the firing of Alexander Kudryavtsev, the influential Russian Orthodox Church called it religious discrimination.

Kudryavtsev, who headed the Russian Academy of Science’s Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, made a presentation at a conference in 2023 in which he said people had lived for some 900 years prior to the era of the Biblical Flood and that “original, ancestral and personal sins” caused genetic diseases that shortened lifespans.

  • Signtist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    All the more reason to never treat them as inevitable. It’s not a bad thing to both accept that we’ll never fully overcome them, but to try our hardest anyway - that’s what keeps them to a minimum. If we were to stop trying to avoid them, the scientific process would degrade even more.

    • Haagel@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Avoid what? Biases?

      I agree with Thomas Kuhn that the bias is intrinsic. I think that his description of paradigm shift is a positive one, borne out of an era of conflicting data and intense argumentation.

      Thesis and antithesis give rise to the a synthesis which becomes the next thesis, so on and so forth until our self inflicted nuclear apocalypse.

      • Signtist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Avoid biases, yes. We can say “current data supports X,” and make whatever real-world decisions we need to make, while still accepting that future data may very well completely disprove that notion. It’s bad science to say "current data supports X, so Y is wrong, but it’s also bad science to say “Yeah, I know current data supports X, but my gut says Y is true even without data, and that’s enough for me.”

        That’s what I see more and more often in society recently; people are seeing that biases are something that can’t truly be avoided, so they’re accepting them instead, allowing themselves to completely abandon data in place of biases. When you catch yourself believing something is true even when data doesn’t currently support it, forgive yourself, as you’re human, but don’t allow yourself to continue believing that thing.

        • Haagel@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Well said. It takes a lot of honest introspection to determine why we believe a certain set of data instead of another set.