“Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans” • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by altruios » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 10:11 PM UTC

al_mandi wrote: post #89

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…

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.

Tell me how your believe is better than someone else's 'blind faith'?

Science is falsifiable - anything pushed forward by science has a way to be disproved built in (other wise it is not science). That's important because then you can update your worldview based on new evidence.

For the same to be true of religion - it must be falsifiable: it MUST have a way to disprove itself via experimentation... oh wait... the (Christian version) does...

Go do this test: "Kings 18:20-40": When you've soaked your bull in water and it doesn't magical catch fire by praying... I'll be waiting. (Or I'll be waiting video proof of the Christian god - that should be repeatable by many people... right?)

MAKE THE BULL CATCH FIRE WITH YOUR PRAYERS OR GTFO WITH YOUR NONSENSE

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

#232

Post by Banana699 » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 10:11 PM UTC

NoboruWataya wrote: post #134

mizzack wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And many many people will be fooled. At least you can spot the acolytes with "I believe in Science" bumper stickers and yard signs. Science is not a belief system.

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.

"Believe" is an overloaded word. In one sense, it's simply the content of your mental state. In basic epistemology, Knowledge is defined as "Justified True Belief", i.e. when your mental state matches the actual state of the world for the "right" reasons (this is surprisingly tricky to make formal, see [1])If your head is a memory cell, your beliefs are the actual 0s or 1s inside it.

In other senses, "beliefs" are an identity, and some people like to think theirs are more based on science than others. "Believing" in science amounts to adhering to a broad package of ethical and lifestyle choices that references science to various degrees, their followers believe this gives them more legitimacy than other lifesyles or ethics systems, but the actual degree to which they are justified by science varies enormously.

To take 2 extremes :

(1) Taking a stance against fossil fuel is "believing in science" because (good, credible) science says those increase carbon footprint which in turn disrupts the climate in a huge variety of ways, technically this doesn't necessarily imply to oppose fossil fuel as science doesn't have normative component (science doesn't care - in the strictest sense - if human civilization is destroyed or signficantly harmed), but with only an additional few, normally agreed-upon, assumptions you can get there.

(2) Taking a stance against biological-women-exclusive sports is "believing in science" according to the stance followers because a few studies of shaky foundations and questionable funding says there is no unfair advantage to those who had male puberty, although there are tons of other studies that disagree.

Those who say (loudly) they "believe in science" are usually using "believe" in the non-philosophical sense, and the viewpoints they love to push most are usually (2)-like rather than (1)-like.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

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

#233

Post by psyc » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 10:13 PM UTC

anon291 wrote: post #50

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'.

It's the same Science you know and trust, now with 50% more social consciousness!

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

#234

Post by bigcat12345678 » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 10:14 PM UTC

throwaway787544 wrote: post #217

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,…

> Nobody will stand up to China, or the USA, or Russia.

If you rank how many people were killed in the past 20 years, US is 100X of China and Russia summed up together...

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

#235

Post by systemvoltage » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 10:14 PM UTC

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…

Yet your opinion falls in the same criteria on limitations of the language you're confining it to. "believe in science" can mean what you said, i.e "it means all evidence gathered so far indicates that it is true, but if more data comes in and a different conclusion is drawn, then the belief should be abandoned"; however, it was also exemplified during COVID as "You're not allowed to question it no matter what merit you have, no matter how logical and methodical your perspective is and regardless of the content of your argument; science is untouchable". The latter is absolutely a religion, but worse, it is a religion that's masquerading as real science, the former, dictating public policy. Far more dangerous and destructive than your run of the mill religion/faith.

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

#236

Post by scelerat » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 10:16 PM UTC

Dig1t wrote: post #192

I'm pro trans rights, pro LGBTQ, and also very much value free speech. There is a trend on the political left right now that basically equates speech directly with violence (e.g. asking whether a man is capable of getting pregnant is violence) >Academic content that undermines the dignity or rights of specific groups >We commit to using this guidance cautiously and judiciously, consulting with ethics experts and advo…

> There is a trend on the political left right now that basically equates speech directly with violence (e.g. asking whether a man is capable of getting pregnant is violence)

I must admit I have not seen an argument like this outside of a strawman characterization.

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

#237

Post by EarlKing » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 10:16 PM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #203

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.

No, there is no universal "good" otherwise wars would not occur. The American Civil War and WW2 are pretty classical examples of massive disagreements over the legitimacy of certain classes of humans. Had those wars not ended the way they did, black people would still be property, and Jews, Romani, and LGBT people would have been exterminated. There are still people who wish that we lived in that alternative history.…

You are conflating object and subject... the thing and its perception. Good can exist even as we disagree over its definition. Some people are simply right, and some are simply wrong. We are not gods.

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

#238

Post by systemvoltage » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 10:19 PM UTC

Dig1t wrote: post #192

I'm pro trans rights, pro LGBTQ, and also very much value free speech. There is a trend on the political left right now that basically equates speech directly with violence (e.g. asking whether a man is capable of getting pregnant is violence) >Academic content that undermines the dignity or rights of specific groups >We commit to using this guidance cautiously and judiciously, consulting with ethics experts and advo…

No post body was provided.

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

#239

Post by hemloc_io » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 10:20 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #195

cycomanic wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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? Yes, they should. >A better way is likely to quietly talk to the authorities first. OK - talk to the authori…

ding ding ding

I don’t think a lot of scientists and health officials realize that their work is two sided. ESP if you’re working with public health the other side is who you view as the unwashed masses. You don’t get to make commandments

Maintaining trust with the public is the most important thing to do, and the best way to do that is transparency.

All the games about if we “should tell people xyz” needs to end if these institutions want to rebuild their credibility with the broader public.

The cdc is at least being retrospective but it seems like nature has gone the opposite way and are institutionally entrenching this idea that the public can’t be trusted with the truth.

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

#240

Post by thisiscorrect » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 10:20 PM UTC

tarakat wrote: post #83

Enginerrrd wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is worse than religion because it’s pretending to be rational. And many many people will be fooled. I hate to make the comparison because it's such a trope, but, IMO this is one of the most insidious things the Nazis did to indoctrinate the population: They did things like send people into schools and they would cherry-pick the weakest, least intelligent, least-liked Jewish kid they could find and set him along…

Good thing this practice has since ceased, and is entirely absent from movies and news reporting, where care is taken that even the most maligned groups are represented by, well, representative individuals, instead of cherry-picking the most unlikable members.

https://mobile.twitter.com/StupidWhiteAds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvNNtBmA3SQ