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

301–310 of 883 posts

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

#301

Post by rafaelero »

dane-pgp wrote: post #294
teawrecks wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> was immaculately conceived, walked on water, turned water into wine, all things that you and I know are inconsistent with reality. 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 spe…

> but unlikely events are still consistent with reality

We name people who overly act on this premisse as schizophrenics.

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

#302

Post by monkeydreams »

psyc wrote: post #212
brightball wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> 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.

I disagree. We didn't have it figured out - it just did not get on many folk's radar because of the differences in network effects prior to the internet. If you were a lonely kid in a farming town who wanted to dress and act like someone from the other biological gender you were shamed or shunned or cut-off. You were the weird one in your town. And that was something that everyone - EVERYONE - else in your town, no matter how empathic or sympathetic, would agree upon.

People who were "odd" just didn't know they could expect a better world. If you were coloured you just sucked up the jokes. If you were gay you hid - or you ran away to places where the network effects were more beneficial. You just dealt with it, and left the normal people to the belief that shit was figured out.

Except for us spectrum types - from about 1997 onwards EVERYONE wanted a piece of us.

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

#303

Post by Aloha »

giantg2 wrote: post #245

"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." If it's good research, then it shouldn't have any of these biases. Stigmatization and restrictions of rights is a policy issue. Science is not policy . I think we need to promote this separation more. Too often I see "but the study…

I suspect that it's peoples perception of bias that will drive this, not actual measurable bias. Often people infer bias when they see an opinion they disagree with.

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

#304

Post by civilized »

Some top-voted comments are dismissive of this, but I think it's reasonable as far as it goes. The devil is of course in the details.

Some people will take this to mean "facts and analyses that I deem inconsistent with my values are unethical to publish", and we'll have to deal with that when it comes up.

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

#305

Post by macspoofing »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #255
macspoofing wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Are you sure about that? We have a pretty good way of predicting the sex of the fetus and somehow our misogynistic and sexist society doesn't have a mass problem of aborting females. >So, in this case, where we have an oppressed group that can be oppressed further, is knowledg…

> We have a pretty good way of predicting the sex of the fetus and somehow our misogynistic and sexist society doesn't have a mass problem of aborting females. But we do... > The natural sex ratio at birth is approximately 103 to 106 males for 100 females.[37][38] However, because of sex-selective abortions, the sex ratio at birth in countries with high proportions of missing women have ranged 108.5 in India to 121.2…

>But we do..

Who is 'we' here? USA? Canada?

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

#306

Post by reb »

xdennis wrote: post #296
reb wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> individuals or groups whose goals are contrary to the good of the human race 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.

> I often hear this type of language from people who think that using pronouns in the conventional way is genocide.

> These types of exaggerations are part of the problem.

Physician, heal thyself. That me mentioning evil in this context brings to mind lefty drivel says more about the information you choose to consume than anything else.

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

#307

Post by dane-pgp »

rafaelero wrote: post #301
dane-pgp wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> was immaculately conceived, walked on water, turned water into wine, all things that you and I know are inconsistent with reality. 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 spe…

> but unlikely events are still consistent with reality We name people who overly act on this premisse as schizophrenics.

Or gamblers, or entrepreneurs. I don't know why you'd single out schizophrenics. Well, actually I do know why, but I still don't think it's a reasonable example for you to highlight.

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

#308

Post by bigDinosaur »

freejazz wrote: post #189
singlow wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the science is bad, then the science is bad. If you do good science and find a result that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas of right and wrong, that doesn't make the science bad. You don't need to be concerned with the ethical impact of the truth, but you do need to be concerned with the ethics of your process. I don't understand what the actions of pseudo-science bigots has to do with someone who is doing real…

Oh, good and bad. It's just that simple!

The point is that results can be true and correct even if you dislike them. Conversely they can be false and incorrect even if we like them. How could you miss that and instead jump to this snarky response?

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

#309

Post by bergenty »

throwawayacc2 wrote: post #182
bergenty wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is something to building around a consensus on who they are roughly around the phrase “first cause no harm”

What is harm?

Physical or mental pain and anguish

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

#310

Post by analog31 »

nradov wrote: post #165
UnpossibleJim wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people are truly worried about electing people like Donald Trump they'll broaden education and, in particular, education in the hard sciences like maths and computer science to bolster critical thinking and logic. At that point we won't elect reality show hucksters who blatantly lie and foment sedition.

And yet a surprising number of violent terrorists have engineering degrees. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-...

There could be straightforward explanations, such as: People from poor countries are more likely to study fields that are seen as pragmatic, meritocratic, and lucrative, and where jobs don't require things like mastery of English, or family connections.
Post reply on HN