Why I have resigned from the Royal Society

Post by a-french-anon » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 10:28 AM UTC

cauch wrote: post #22

roenxi wrote: post #8

I respect the author's principle-based approach but many of her arguments seem a little off. If the RS doesn't expel people for their politics, then it doesn't make sense to expel Musk for, essentially, concerns about his politics. And if you expel crotchety scientists for disagreeing with the scientific consensus there won't be any left. The RS motto is literally "Take nobody's word for it"; I don't see how Musk dis…

> If the RS doesn't expel people for their politics, then it doesn't make sense to expel Musk for, essentially, concerns about his politics. But the article does not talk about Musk's political opinion per se. The concerns would have been totally the same if Musk was acting the same way but involving himself with a different political ideology. The concerns seem to be: 1) Musk is aggressive towards his fellow scienti…

Post by dead_gunslinger » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 10:29 AM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #7

Oarch wrote: post #6

No loss. Whinging about politics and non-mainstream opinions. Is there genuine curiosity (even dare I say wrongthink) left in the RS or is it just another polite social club for people to gather and feel smug about the consensuses they've formed.

>>non-mainstream opinions It's a society of scientists - why would it admit or tolerate liars? Spreading obviously and easily provable misinformation online isn't "non-mainstream opinion" - it's just lying. Why would that be tolerated?

Post by viraptor » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 10:31 AM UTC

zosima wrote: post #14

fabian2k wrote: post #2

> Most of those I've spoken to agree that a serious breach of these principles was in 2022, when Musk tweeted: "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci", thereby managing to simultaneously offend the LGBTQ community, express an antivaxx sentiment, and put Fauci, already under attack from antivaxxers, at further risk. This statement is clearly relevant to a scientific society. It is not just about unrelated bigotry by a fello…

Elons statements were obviously not aimed at Faucis role in vaccine discussions, but in his much more dubious role in gain-of-function research and especially covering up the origins of Covid. While that is relevant to a scientific society, I think it's worth taking a good hard look on whether its wise to take a side on that, other than maybe denounce gain-of-function research.

Post by shafyy » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 10:33 AM UTC

didntcheck wrote: post #29

roenxi wrote: post #8

I respect the author's principle-based approach but many of her arguments seem a little off. If the RS doesn't expel people for their politics, then it doesn't make sense to expel Musk for, essentially, concerns about his politics. And if you expel crotchety scientists for disagreeing with the scientific consensus there won't be any left. The RS motto is literally "Take nobody's word for it"; I don't see how Musk dis…

I feel similarly. I agree Musk doesn't belong in the RS, but I'd have said the same in 2018 (I missed the news). It's concerning that the author has only come to this realization now that Musk vocally disagrees with her political views. I don't consider that principled at all

Post by gambiting » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 10:34 AM UTC

dead_gunslinger wrote: post #43

gambiting wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>non-mainstream opinions It's a society of scientists - why would it admit or tolerate liars? Spreading obviously and easily provable misinformation online isn't "non-mainstream opinion" - it's just lying. Why would that be tolerated?

[dead]