Nature magazine existence is attacking my dignity. Now what?
I'm taking the proverbial piss, but their statement is completely absurd.
“Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
261–270 of 883 posts
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're using outrage to select science for what's pleasing to hear instead of what's true, you can use 1 as an explanation for 2. And 1 isn't exactly new.
Ah, so the social science reproducibility problems are hypothesized to be caused by bias (or, less provocatively, filtering), moreso than e.g. bad experimental design. Yes, that would nicely reconcile both perspectives.
There's plenty of room for both. If you have lots of bad experiments and filter the ones you agree with, the combination is even worse because there's an apparent consensus.
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#263like most here I don't particularly agree with the main premise of the piece (objectivity taking a sideline to how something might affect a population), but I am a little saddened if not scared at how vitriolic some of the comments are here. there are many vulnerable populations in the world that might negatively be impacted by publications, to label even the thought of that as a factor in ethics as evil makes me uncomfortable
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
To do you the favor, as ashkenazi jew (at higher risk for a number of different genetic illnesses) nothing about my understanding of this is predicated upon the concept of a race. That there is a genetically distinct haplotype group that corresponds to many folk that share these traits with me, is sufficient. By the way, I don't think "African descent" is a race by any means of my understanding of the word...
> That there is a genetically distinct haplotype group that corresponds to many folk that share these traits with me, is sufficient This is what race means. You are taking the same referent and giving it a different designator.
If that's the case I'm sure you can provide a link to a dictionary stating as much. In reality, such haplotype groups, when they even exist, do not correlate with what people call "race".
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#265Earlier 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…
Ah, we've already tried this! Check out the early history of HIV in SF - scientists/doctors/politicians knew how it was spread and refused to do or say anything lest they further stigmatize the gay community, which was disastrous to the actual gay community.
This is incorrect. Politicians and doctors refused to do very much about it because gay lives weren’t considered worth saving. Before the viral factor was discovered it was believed it was literally divine punishment to kill gays.
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#266Yet, 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 think that's a pretty unreasonable comparison. There's a difference between religious dogma which makes claims about reality, and norms or ethics. Discrimination and harm as discussed in this document isn't about factual findings, but is about "superiority or inferiority of one human group over another" (i.e. a value judgement), "the rights and dignities of an individual or human group" (i.e. social norms and conventions), "text or images that ... disparage" (again, value judgement), "embody singular, privileged perspectives" (an issue of viewpoint, not disagreement about facts in reality).
None of these prevent researchers from sharing their evidence-based conclusions, only the projection of value, status, dignity, or privilege onto those findings. As a society, we can agree to be civil, respectful and uphold particular values while we investigate objective reality.
Trying to claim that an ethical stance for non-discrimination is equivalent to creationism or geocentrism is making type error; one makes claims about norms and how we should behave, and one makes claims about how the world works whether irrespective of our beliefs or behavior.
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see any evidence that it was "axed", it is not getting that many upvotes and is falling to later pages.
It was top 5 or 10 or so on the front page and then after a page refresh gone. It has more votes than many of the topics on the front page and discussion is active. Maybe just really unlucky timing on my part but not the normal progression you see. I know these type topics are typically removed from the spotlight by staff out of a presumption that the comments won’t be productive. I think that’s fair in some cases, b…
IIRC, posts with more comments than votes are automatically penalized. It is #11 on the front page now, though.
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#268Earlier 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.
I wouldn't call being on the receiving end of racial slurs for dating outside your "race", being shunned for being queer, and other such things mere "disagreements". (This was me, as a teen, in the 90s).
It is really easy to romanticize the past, back when you were younger and just didn't have the same grasp of the world. Especially if you had a decent enough life at the time.
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#269I'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.
https://youtu.be/uU7nzwbJ-Hk?t=41
Here is a good example:
> "I want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic and opens trans people up to violence"
This is a US senator and a Berkeley law professor talking in court.
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#270Earlier 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.
> So instead how about this theory: the internet in general was pretty wealth-marked in 1998 (far more than we realized, with our American mythology of universal white suburban middle-classness and “global village” Internet mythology) BUT, of people who were more wealthy in 1998, the most likely to NOT have internalized upper-class practices were the grandfathers from the “Silent” or “Greatest” generations before the postwar “mass middle class”. Our parents were beavery professionals who settled into the suburban cocoon, we knew we were destined for glory (or at least selective colleges) from birth, but THEY were socialized into some pool hall, street gang, farmhand, enlisted man kinda culture where boldness of assertion counted more than patient derivation from shared principles.
> And if the Anglophone internet is ::gestures:: like this now maybe it’s cause it’s less of a professional-class preserve? The dividing line maybe being smartphones where “people on the internet” went from “people who specifically spend $X/mo on it as luxury” to “people with telephone service”? That’s a real possibility, that for all the “Global Village” stuff the wondrous effect of the ‘90s internet was to create a cultural space that was MORE gatekept by wealth and education.
> That’s… kind of depressing, though. “Haha you thought the world was getting better because you were eliminating elitist barriers but actually it’s cause you were making them higher, which is good because the poor and non-elite are disproportionately idiots with worthless ideas and to the extent they’re on top of things the thing they’re on top of is undermining the basis of a good society, and anyway those times were a phenomenon of a narrow early adopter base and you’ll never ever get them back unless you make the non-elite economically and politically irrelevant.”
> Depressing but very well precedented, that’s exactly the arc newsprint, radio, and TV followed before.
https://kontextmaschine.tumblr.com/post/185164859368/your-gr...