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

41–50 of 883 posts

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

#41

Post by anon291 »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #11
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.

Exactly, the process of applying scientific results to human society falls well within the realm of politics. We should not allow scientific bureaucrats to have a say in the kinds of policies implemented, but rather limit their contribution to answering empirical questions based on inquiries presented by actual politicians.

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

#43

Post by FollowingTheDao »

ElCheapo wrote: post #14

Quoted post unavailable.

> Farming equipment must respect the dignity and rights of all humans.

Farmers must respect the dignity and rights of all humans.

> The TCP protocol must respect the dignity and rights of all humans.

Network Engineers must respect the dignity and rights of all humans.

> Cinema projectors must respect the dignity and rights of all humans.

Cinema owners must respect the dignity and rights of all humans.

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

#45

Post by blueflow »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #11
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.

> What happens when we stop agreeing on what the “good” is?

Did we ever agree? I always felt like Democracy is some kind of status quo between the incompatible.

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

#47

Post by upsidesinclude »

nubero wrote: post #21

Enrico Fermi comes to mind: “Whatever Nature has in store for mankind, unpleasant as it may be, men must accept, for ignorance is never better than knowledge.” I guess he wasn’t talking about the magazine…

That might be the finest rebuttal on offer

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

#48

Post by User23 »

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…

What do you mean by “meaningfully equal?”

It strikes me as a tricky set of not always terribly related concepts. As a Christian I believe all human beings are equal in inherent dignity. As an American who likes the Anglo-American legal tradition I believe that all people ought to be equal before the law, even though that’s observably not the case. As someone who has performed hundreds of tech interviews and worked in this industry a long time, I don’t believe people are remotely close to equal in developer ability or productivity and I don’t see any way they could be made to be without bringing high performers down to the lowest common denominator.

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

#50

Post by anon291 »

landofredwater wrote: post #25

I think that most of these types of guidelines and rules are written with good intent, but intent is what ruins good science. Science, as a method, works when you have a hypothesis, but when that hypothesis isn't supported by your findings you can't just discard the findings and go "well I'm still pretty sure I was right anyway." If you find something you disagree with to be true, that makes the science even more imp…

The only 'good' intent in science is to pursue empirical truth based on the application of the scientific method. Every other intent is questionable, and certainly if one is following it, soon deviates from the realm of 'science'.
Post reply on HN