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

211–220 of 883 posts

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

#211

Post by rplst8 »

mizzack wrote: post #146
NoboruWataya wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it not? I certainly don't know or understand even a fraction of what would be considered established science, but if a credible expert tells me that something is supported by established science I will believe it over something like religious dogma. I consider myself to be a "believer" in science.

Science exists in a perpetual state of being supported or challenged by evidence. If the clergy ("credible expert", Nature) make it impossible to challenge the orthodoxy ("established science") then it _is_ dogma. By being a "believer" in science as you've laid it out, you aren't believing in science as a process, but science as an institution.

>Science exists in a perpetual state of being supported or challenged by evidence

One problem with that. Some sciences, particularly soft or social sciences cross broadly into culture and "ways of life". There are certain things today that cannot be questioned without getting shouted down or deplatformed. So challenging the current widely held scientific facts can be career ending.

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

#212

Post by psyc »

brightball wrote: post #70
blueflow wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In the 90s before mass internet adoption, it sure felt like it. We had disagreements, but nothing compared to what we see today.

Everyone's gonna tell you this is fully explained by nostalgia and various cognitive biases, actually, cuz that's what we do hyea. But I'll back you all day. I know they literally can't hear it, but I always have the urge to tell Gen Y and later that for a minute in the mid-late 90's we had this shit mostly, not totally - that'll never happen - but mostly figured out. And then they blew it all up, and damned us all to hell. And they'll never, ever know that it happened.

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

#213

Post by ryandrake »

cycomanic wrote: post #117
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #20

No, science must pursue the truth, no matter where it leads. There is no such thing as a hate fact.

I think there is a lot more nuance than people admit. Lets take an example of we have a deadly disease spreading through the population (much more deadly than covid) . Let's say a scientist finds out that the disease is primarily (exclusively) spread by red haired people. Should they just publish the finding? The fact becoming openly known might lead to mobs of people chasing red hairs and locking them up or even lyn…

Finally, a charitable reading!

The article draws the comparison with the ethics of doing science on human subjects. We mostly agree in principle, that some science simply shouldn't be done if it harms human test subjects[1], even if it would produce important scientific output. We're willing to make that trade-off because the cost outweighs the potential results. The article simply extends this principle to harms done to humans that are not test subjects.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...

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

#215

Post by intimidated »

n4r9 wrote: post #122
i_love_limes wrote: post #112

This has garnered quite a lot of reactions from the comments. I'd like to ask a genuine question about this, from the perspective of assuming that Nature is acting in good faith about this. Let's say someone has calculated the polygenic scores (PGS) of Heteronormativity, meaning that a model, can predict with a decent level of accuracy that someone will or will not be straight from their DNA. This, in an ideal world,…

That's a great example, much better than the one I thought of. The line has to be somewhere, right? Even if someone dismisses your example, you can make it more and more extreme to the point of "if this knowledge becomes public, a maniac will 99% likely destroy the rest of the earth".

Which is more likely:

1. These censorship policies will be used to save the world from 99% certain destruction at the hands of a maniac.

2. These censorship policies will be used to crush evidence that [GROUP X] is overrepresented in [FAVORABLE SITUATION Y] due to [FAVORABLE TRAIT Z], thus legitimizing policies unjustly punishing [GROUP X].

Even if you think this censorship is righteous and good, how will you deal with folks no longer trusting the scientific basis of what you claim? Why should anyone believe there is no genetic difference between [GROUPS D and E] when you're confessing that you'd never admit it?

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

#216

Post by humanrebar »

teawrecks wrote: post #183
al_mandi wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a person of faith. At the same time, we point out that the religion of "scientism" exists whether people admit it or not, especially when they claim that they "believe in science". Correct faith and science are not contradictory. And those people mix up belief in the unseen with blind faith without proof or evidence.

I think your view on this is being influenced by the limitations of the language you're using. When a religious person says they "believe" something, it means they operate as if it were true even though they have no evidence to indicate it as such (a.k.a. the god of the gaps). When a scientist says they "believe" something, it means all evidence gathered so far indicates that it is true, but if more data comes in and…

> When a religious person says they "believe" something, it means they operate as if it were true even though they have no evidence to indicate it as such (a.k.a. the god of the gaps).

In practice religious (or spiritual) people are a rather diverse bunch and it's not all that helpful to paint with too broad of a brush.

I will point out that in at least Christian theology, "faith" and "trust" are basically synonyms. In the original Greek of the New Testament, it's literally the same word.

In that sense, making choices based on trust in God or making decisions based on trust in science are really fairly similar. And quite often they're not contradictory either.

For example, both science and scriptures say worrying is bad for you, so someone can try to minimize worry based on faith in science and faith in scripture simultaneously.

I'll also point out that a lot of the "scientific" objections to religions boil down to metaphysical disagreements about the nature of observation of the nature of a (notional, at least) deity. I put "scientific" in scare quotes because science itself only makes sense given some assumptions, like the axiom that it's reasonable to assume things do not exist until it's definitely proven they do. That's a valid opinion, but it's not scientific as such. Another common assumption is that a creator and a fossil record (for instance) are somehow incompatible. As if a creator can create the cosmos but a fossil record is a bit much somehow.

Anyway, I think folks would find each other more thoughtful and reasonable if they'd take some time to listen more. There are lots of misconceptions in all directions in these discussions.

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

#217

Post by throwaway787544 »

What about the harm done by allowing publication from a group of humans killing other humans? Russian research institutions were given carte blanche while the state murdered innocent Ukrainians (and still does). Yet all the high and mighty science institutions keep insisting we should keep supporting Russian research. The ethical thing to do would be to use the influence of the scientific community to hinder, impede, and block any group that so horrifyingly and blatantly violates human rights. But apparently we're all okay with oppression as long as we're not the ones being oppressed.

Ethics make us sound noble, but nobody will stand up to China, or the USA, or Russia. We all care about getting ours much more than we care about protecting people. The hypocrisy is so obvious nobody mentions it, like a turd on the sidewalk. Step over it and move on.

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

#218

Post by commandlinefan »

dcow wrote: post #97

Most of this seems wildly unenforceable at a practical level. And yes that's all really bad and non-secular and society will be harmed because people, even with the best intentions, will try to filter facts. The two terminology clarifications they make I don't mind though: sex vs gender and race vs biological lineage. I think society would be better off with very clear and precise usage of those terms. I mentally fli…

> wildly unenforceable at a practical level

I suspect it will be enforced the way open source codes of conduct are enforced. Very, very selectively, by very, very suspiciously agenda-ed people.

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

#220

Post by deepdriver »

dcow wrote: post #97

Most of this seems wildly unenforceable at a practical level. And yes that's all really bad and non-secular and society will be harmed because people, even with the best intentions, will try to filter facts. The two terminology clarifications they make I don't mind though: sex vs gender and race vs biological lineage. I think society would be better off with very clear and precise usage of those terms. I mentally fli…

It's trivially enforceable. Academic institutions have been absolutely ideologically and politically captured. The long march through not only the institutions, but especially the HR departments has achieved total victory.
Post reply on HN