More often than not, the pursuit of truth *is* the pursuit of social equality. This is a loaded prompt.

**It's probably best to follow our scientific truths, while remembering their potential and likely limits anyway.** - In a case where a scientific discovery calls social equality into conflict, I think it's important to acknowledge the limitations of any current scientific evidence while still not completely writing it off. - For instance, _New York Times_ columnist Bret Stephens got into trouble after publishing an [opinion piece](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/opinion/jewish-culture-genius-iq.html) about "Jewish Genius". Stephens referenced cultural reasons for what he perceived as Jewish people's abilities to "think differently", but he also mentioned certain statistics on IQ and Ashkenazi Jews, as well as the comparatively large amount of Nobel Prizes won by Jewish people (a cultural but also potentially genetic phenomenon, the research seemed to say.) Since he also cited a paper that included authorship from someone who promoted racist views during his lifetime, the NYT revised the piece with a statement clarifying, for the critics who came after him, that Stephens should have attacked it critically. - Whether and to what extent any of the "Jewish genius" Stephens championed is genetic or cultural or anything in between can and should always be contentious. There will, I think, always be limits to what any one layer of phenomena can explain. Even if there is truth to the Jewish genetics in this case, it being the case won't explain everything, and there's no need to imagine it means one group is better than all others just because of one trend that has seemed to hold true for some amount of time. But shutting down any inquiry at all into the matter, like happened in this case where now the cited paper can't be considered _at all_, doesn't seem necessary to me. Whatever the findings, it's just one snapshot in time, anyway. Everything is evolving, and there'll be something new along soon. A couple other cases to consider: - There could be some studies that may merit the title of "scientific truth" that will likely do nothing but harm to essentially the entire population. Say, something drawing a conclusion about a certain group of people that is negative but that is very superficial and will quite literally _only_ fuel discord. - Oppositely, there might be cases where social equality goals would demand the suppression of very important information---e.g., a study on deleterious effects of hormone therapy that is kept under wraps for the sake of equality when in fact there might be serious harms associated with such use. - Cases like these seem a bit more clear-cut to me, in that following the "truth" in them might not actually be the best option.

**I would prefer to have social equality over the truth. Social equality will positively impact more peoples lives.** - When I look at my life, and think about what I want, I would want social equality over truth. If I had to choose, having equal opportunities or knowing the honest truth, I would pick having equal opportunities. - To me, having equality and being treated the same as others is more important than knowing the truth. In my life, the former will have a greater impact on me. -- The truth is important but can be ignored. If ignored, it will not effect a person too much. However if we ignore social equality, and let inequality strengthen, this will effect everyone. So, we should not prioritise truth.