Umm. No. Eugenics is an ideology. You need to understand that the "social sciences" are typically equal to religions that more often push politics than anything else.

You don't practice science the way you practice religion. There's no "different interpretations" in science. Surely there are rivaling hypotheses and bad science, but eventually it will find the truth.

I stand corrected on the use of hypotheses, although the testing of theories can also lead to further investigation. The point of my response to the OP was not to confuse the use of hypotheses and theories with his suggestion of employing faith in the absence of conclusive evidence.

eugenics came about because of science, can we agree on that?

and look dude you might think that you can take people and make them completely objective and strip away all of their ideological leanings when it comes to doing experiments, but i don't buy that personally

" There's no "different interpretations" in science. Surely there are rivaling hypotheses and bad science, but eventually it will find the truth."

science inherently is about different interpretations of data made by different scientists... over time we choose one interpretation as fact and dismiss the others sure but that doesn't change the fact that its about different interpretations of data being compared to each other

fair enough but regardless that doesn't change the fact that science presents us with tools that have a great capacity for harm, the topic isn't about science or religion inherently motivating action but about which is the greater threat

if i lay a gun and a knife on a table neither has inherently the ability to motivate action but we could argue that a gun is more capable of causing harm right?

I only pointed this out, because in a debates like this, you often see "theory" interpreted as "hypothesis".

No, we don't agree on that.

As I said, there exists bad science. And some fields have more bad science than the others - nutrition science is perhaps the worst.

Look, as I said there are rivaling hypotheses. One research may provide data that support or contradict multiple hypotheses. What this means, that one thing may be true under certain conditions and some other under some other conditions. Let us take four imaginary hypotheses: 1. The sky is blue, 2. the sky is red, 3. the sky is black, 4. the sky is green.

You can easily understand that all the hypotheses can't be true. Or can they. So we do some research by observing the sky. Based on the data gathered, we end up in a conclusion that MOST OFTEN the sky is blue, so we say that the sky is blue. Based on the data, we understand that under certain conditions the sky is black (at the nighttime) and red (during sunset), but it was never green (although some colour blind observers could not tell if the sky was red or green). So, technically the same data confirmed total of THREE hypotheses and contradicted one.

It can provide tools that can have great capasity for harm, but also tools that have great capasity for good.

Which one causes more harm depends on the gun and a knife and how they are used.

It looks like somebody here wants to live an Amish life. lol

A long time ago I'd say religion, but today, science.

I mean cigarettes, alcohol, drugs... People die from car accidents every single day.

The leading cause of death in the world is heart disease, and that comes from eating garbage food created by science.

And you don't even have a choice anymore. Pretty much all the food has been modified in some way, it's all poisonous.  Even the fruits and vegetables get sprayed with pesticides and other chemicals before they're sold to us.

Even medicine can kill you if you don't take it right.  Medicine we probably wouldn't even need if it weren't for the garbage we either ate or inhaled, created by science.

Obviously Science, right? I don't know of any product of religious belief that is capable of ending all life on the planet.

Religion.

That was the easiest question of my life.