hashtag #nooneleftbehind appears to be in a similar vein.. "sovereignty" is so pre-modern
"sovereignty" can be dated to 1648, the Treaty of Westphalia. Well before "modern" times.
“Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
371–380 of 883 posts
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I noticed the exact same thing. I found the post on the front page. A short time after, mid second page. Last I checked it was on the 3rd. I suspect there’s a bit too much wrongthink going on here and someone doesn’t like it. The priesthood is displeased with the vulgar masses in this thread.
When I clicked on it (4 hours after you posted this comment) it was in the 12th place on the first page.
It goes up and down. Don't assume malevolence.
Sometimes people flag posts. You can click "vouch" after a certain karma level to unflag it.
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
you'd probably benefit from reading and thinking about this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism sadly, what is called a fact is a malleable thing in the hands of the ill-intentioned, and all too many bigots are more than happy to pass off pseudo-science as the real deal. "science" isn't some abstract thing, it's composed of people and their actions, and as i think every adult will recog…
Sorry, this is completely off topic. Why aren't you using capital letters? I've seen this trend starting to gain more traction and it makes no sense to me.
The textual medium of the internet has allowed for the creation of differing written registers. You may have learned to write in a "standard way" in school that implicitly established itself as "the right way to write." What was left out was an analysis of the socio-linguistic component (probably because you were in 5th or 6th grade and this topic is addressed much later in specialized courses).
Proper or "improper" writing can signal formality and casualness and that sort of casualness is how I read the response. For example, I deliberately pick a register when I consider the audience I'm addressing and use it as a tool to convey side-band information. You may have seen social media posts where nearly every word is suffixed with an emoji. I'd consider this its own register. While I might use all lowercase in a text message or on a discord server, I'd likely only expect to read an emoji-laden message on Facebook or Twitter. Also if it came from me, it would probably look sarcastic as that's not a register I typically use.
Either way, people can do this accidentally, purposefully, or sometimes as a function of the medium. Eg: I can't write in an emoji-laden register here because HN strips emoji. An entire register, simply, and absolutely inaccessible. We probably agree that it doesn't fit the tone of the site, but still, we can imagine how the texture of the site would change if it was allowed and the pros and cons of that decision.
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#374As academic world starts to act more like a religious church, and losing grip on being the good pastors of science, the actual scientific community will detach themselves and leave the academic dogmatists with a label of "scientism" at best.
Not so simple, remember the inquisition?
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#375I'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)
No doubt because they wanted to be "inclusive" of such opinions.
I am reminded of this old warning: "Have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out."
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#376Yet, 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…
> "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…
I've been reading some old books lately including:
* From Atomos to Atom
* From Alchemy to Chemistry
* The Main Currents of Marxism Part 1 (not about Marxism - just a bunch of, mostly Christian, philosophers)
* The Skeptical Chemist
* Some of Descartes' work
I've noticed two notable things. First, the early Christian thinkers were _extremely_ logical. They did not shy away from human observation and philosophy, they embraced it. They spent a a majority of their study time reconciling human knowledge with scripture to try and understand their place in the world. Churches sponsored a lot of this research and invested heavily in making their religions consistent with human knowledge.
Second, not only did the church invest heavily in making their religion consistent with human knowledge, all of humanity did the same. So much effort went into reconciling the early greek philosophers with modern observation and religion. From medicine, to law, to religion, to alchemy - everything was very inter-dependent and few (if any) bodies of knowledge could stand on their own, they appealed to facts from diverse philosophies to justify their stances.
You see a pattern in the 1500s-1700s where, in a very short period of time, humans got _very good_ at attaching philosophy to physical phenomenon and reconciling what was observed with what they believed. During this period, pretty much every branch of human understanding underwent unprecedented massive paradigm shifts. Huge amounts of what was "known" were, fairly quickly, toppled when extremely foundational beliefs were questioned (i.e. the 3 element theory vs. the 4 element theory). A lot of folks were fairly invested in what they "knew" and didn't react well to the rug being pulled out from under them. It wasn't just "the church" that had a bad reaction to some of these thinkers; medicine rejected many early scientists like Paracelsus (generous to call them scientists) striping them of their credentials, jobs, etc.
I guess what I'm learning is that European history was a lot more messy than I thought it to be (shocker, I know). And it's really fascinating seeing these currents of thought develop over time. It's pretty amazing that it took us nearly 2000 years to question Aristotle and, once we did, the rapid progress that followed. It's only been about 400 years since we thought maybe there were 3 elements instead of 4, and we are already seriously considering colonizing another planet.
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#377Can anyone actually think of an actual discovery that harmed people? I'm missing some actual examples of what they're trying to protect people from.
e.g. the eugenics movement, which led to forced sterilizations of people who many scientists of the time considered "unfit to reproduce."
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Perhaps, but I suspect that the orderly personality type that often contributes to people studying engineering can, in excess, lead to a totalitarian world view.
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's a totally different level. Believing a shitty product will make a successful entry on the market does require some level of self-delusion, but nothing like believing a cluster of extremely low probability hypothesis about the world. The closest comparison to that, again, is a schizophrenic.
He isn't predicting the future, he is reflecting on the past. Is it likely that all of those unlikely events will happen to the next person born? Definitely not.
Is it possible that they happened to one of the billions of people who lived? Yes. Even more so if that person happens to be God incarnate who created the universe.
In fact, the chances of these highly unlikely events actually goes up if you consider the person claimed to be God and did miracles to demonstrate his divinity - highly unlikely events is the exact thing you would expect from someone proving to be God
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#380Earlier 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…
> Parthenogenetic offspring in species that use either the XY or the X0 sex-determination system have two X chromosomes and are female.
From this we can infer that Jesus had two X chromosomes, and was therefore a trans man.