Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 883 posts

Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

#11

Post by DiggyJohnson »

tarakat wrote: post #6

Yet, people can be harmed indirectly. For example, research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. It may provide justification for undermining the human rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics. [..] Advancing knowledge and understanding is a fundamental public good. In some cases, however, potent…

Well connected - and I think this comparison is becoming more apt each passing day.

These statements and policies are just so… egotistical… for lack of a better word. What happens when we stop agreeing on what the “good” is? How can you claim to respect all humans when you don’t respect the human cognitive ability to disagree?

Thanks for posting.

Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

#12

Post by PsySecGroup »

effingwewt wrote: post #3

Science must only be objective. Science should not care one whit about humans or what we want/think/feel. We should respect people, there's a huge difference. As far as I'm concerned, this is the final nail in the coffin for nature magazine or whatever they call themselves now. This entire blog post is them contradicting themselves repeatedly.

No post body was provided.

Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

#13

Post by eli_gottlieb »

tarakat wrote: post #6

Yet, people can be harmed indirectly. For example, research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. It may provide justification for undermining the human rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics. [..] Advancing knowledge and understanding is a fundamental public good. In some cases, however, potent…

>research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. It may provide justification for undermining the human rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics.

Do these people think there are motherfucking X-Men living among us who we want to save from stigma? These kinds of statements read like the authors don't actually believe people are meaningfully equal.

Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

#15

Post by immigrantheart »

tarakat wrote: post #6

Yet, people can be harmed indirectly. For example, research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. It may provide justification for undermining the human rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics. [..] Advancing knowledge and understanding is a fundamental public good. In some cases, however, potent…

Seems that they show their true colors.

Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

#17

Post by setgree »

tarakat wrote: post #6

Yet, people can be harmed indirectly. For example, research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. It may provide justification for undermining the human rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics. [..] Advancing knowledge and understanding is a fundamental public good. In some cases, however, potent…

> In some cases, however, potential harms to the populations studied may outweigh the benefit of publication.

I see a counterfactual claim ("may outweigh") and therefore an opportunity for some causal identification, i.e. a scientific answer!

An RCT would be ideal, but we might also look to the literature on attitude change in general to see how new information impacts discourse and attitudes. Here's a few things off the top of my head:

* https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/692739

* https://alexandercoppock.com/graham_coppock_2021.html

* https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-...

I think that in general, researchers find racial/prejudicial attitudes very resistant to change, either in an anti-prejudicial or "confirm my existing biases" direction...

Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

#18

Post by dcow »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #13
tarakat wrote: post #6

Yet, people can be harmed indirectly. For example, research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. It may provide justification for undermining the human rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics. [..] Advancing knowledge and understanding is a fundamental public good. In some cases, however, potent…

> research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. It may provide justification for undermining the human rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics. Do these people think there are motherfucking X-Men living among us who we want to save from stigma? These kinds of statements read like the authors don…

Exactly. What happens when some research may feel socially dirty but is actually a huge boon to some group? I can’t stand the privilege required to say you know better for some other group. Let groups of people stand up for themselves and call out BS when they see it. How can the hegemony possibly understand the feelings of minority groups?
Post reply on HN