[camdenlock]

> I am not in favor of flat out banning such books (even if I personally believe they have no place in an environment of science and learning such as a university)

In society’s most important institutions of science and learning, ALL ideas must be open to scrutiny, especially unpopular ones.

Shouldn’t we want society to be built on the bedrock of truth via scrutiny, rather than on the mere sand of intellectual fashions?

[kwinten]

Ideally, sure.

It is just my personal opinion that anti-science does not have equal value as science and should not be found right alongside it. Given the correct context and time and place, I don't fundamentally have an issue with the books existing or people being able to read them.

[camdenlock]

An idea is not “anti-science” merely because it makes you or anyone else feel uncomfortable.

[orwin]

4. Someone who thinks that homosexuality is immoral and dangerous.

I'd argue that this is anti-science. The biological theory "en vogue" is that homosexuality (not the sexual act, the falling in love part) is determined by hormonal balance during pregnancy. I don't think any theory argue that this is dangerous, and well, about immorality, it has nothing to do with science.

So this idea is anti-science, and i don't think is interesting enough to take a spot on a shelf in a science university. Maybe in the reserve. Are you disagreeing with that?

[baobabKoodaa]

So which is it? If someone says "homosexuality is immoral", is it anti-science, or does it "have nothing to do with science"? You can't have both.

[esyir]

Morality has little to do with science, and this case is not different. For an extreme example we determined that murderous psychopathy was related to a developmental hiccup, would you be surprised that people would call it immoral or dangerous?