291–300 of 883 posts
the guidance helps in considering whether it is ethically appropriate to question a social group’s right to freedom or cultural rights Somebody want to explain to me what the heck "cultural rights" are and how publishing data could interfere with them?
Quoted post unavailable.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
I would go further and say we actually do have quite a bit of hard evidence that societal disagreements were more civil several decades ago. Bipartisan legislation, violent threats against public figures, mass murders, and attempts to violently overthrow an election have all gotten objectively worse since the rise of the internet. I don't know how much the internet has caused this deterioration, but it is strongly co…
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…
All those things are completely consistent with reality. Every year there are virgin births[0] (not immaculate conceptions[1], which is a term specific to the birth of the Virgin Mary herself), water turning into wine[2], and people walking on water[3].
I think what you mean is, the specific details of those miracles, as described in the Bible, have not been observed since, and they would have required a succession of extremely improbable quantum events. No one disagrees with the notion that those events were scientifically unlikely, but unlikely events are still consistent with reality.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrigation [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowshoe
It's a mad world. And this is basically driving moderates into the arms of the authoritarian strongman who at least doesn't deny that water is wet.
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…
I see it more as an acknowledgement that, in the midst of a propaganda war (which the entire world is now engaged in 24/7, thanks to the internet), the information you put out into the world may have strategic value to individuals or groups whose goals are contrary to the good of the human race. When true things are used to justify horrific actions, it's particularly difficult to prevent because that truth lends seri…
These types of exaggerations are part of the problem.
It would be fine if by that you meant supporters of totalitarian regimes, but I often hear this type of language from people who think that using pronouns in the conventional way is genocide.
the guidance helps in considering whether it is ethically appropriate to question a social group’s right to freedom or cultural rights Somebody want to explain to me what the heck "cultural rights" are and how publishing data could interfere with them?
A scientist could perform research investigating the impact of those teachings. They might find that it negatively impacts the ability of LDS adults to form healthy sexual attachments with their spouses, even though marriages are prized by the church. They could then publish those findings in a credible journal.
An anti-LDS government official in control of education in some state (say, California) could take those findings and use them to justify a new policy that all LDS children are required to attend sex-ed classes in school, and threaten parents with visits from child protection services if they refuse. Depending on the local governmental structure and voter demographics, this could pass into law relatively quickly.
Thus, a researcher's decision to publish has led to interference with LDS people's cultural rights.
There aren't many examples of human behavior this sequence of events couldn't apply to, if local powers (or distant ones) were so inclined. Do you think it's irresponsible for scientists to consider that?
The religious extremist (Ned Flanders) said "there a things we don't WANT to know. IMPORTANT things!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "The teachings of the Church must not be undermined by heliocentrism or evolution research, so findings in those areas will be strictly filtered for heresy before publication." This is actually a bit of a historical myth that due to anti-religious bias prevails widely. Contrary to widespread belief, the works of Charles Darwin were never on the Catholic Church's Index of Forbidden Books, nor did the Catholic Church…
Can you provide some books or links if so that I can read up on these misconceptions?
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,…
> In the world we live in, this would be used to abort babies that don't pass the PGS to the vast majority of people who have this information. If you think that aborting babies, in general, is not immoral, then I, personally, don't see this as a problem. Let's try a different thought experiment: If you were doing IVF because you wanted one child. And you had two embryos. So you knew you would discard one. And you fo…
Yet another way to think of it is: you had a choice to decide whether your blind child should live. You chose that they should die.
Your desire to only want one child in this circumstance is not free of ethical implications.