Live data from Hacker News

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

nature.com

401–410 of 883 posts

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

#401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were bombings almost every day in the US in the 1970’s.

We're not allowed to talk about those any more.

Which is a weird phenomenon in and of itself right?

The amount of political violence pre-internet is just an order of magnitude higher than today’s. Most young people (millennials, Gen Z) are completely unaware - unless you studied this stuff - that e.g. the Senate building was bombed in 1983 by a bunch of leftists upset over the US’s involvement in Lebanon.

This is to say, I’m skeptical of the argument that the internet has made things worse. Definitely not better, maybe not worse.

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

#402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the same thing. If you know the kid next door is being abused - and you do nothing about it, you are partially at fault for the violence happening to the kid. If you do something (call child services, for example) and it fails, you tried, and should try again lest you fall in the same trap. It is similar with police violence and racism. If you sit idly by and don't demand change, despite knowing people ar…

Yes, but see what you did there? You're comparing an individual case where you have personal information to a general vibe promoted by the media. The general public has been led to believe that thousands of unarmed black men are killed by the police every year. In reality it's around 20. [1][2] Saying that "silence is violence" coupled with misleading information is a means of manipulating people. I prefer the old fa…

You're missing the point. You DO have personal information that you can do things with in your daily life.

A simple example: challenging racist or sexist jokes from your friends.

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

#403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

David Shor was ostracized for presenting this research: https://www.vox.com/2020/7/29/21340308/david-shor-omar-wasow... > Shor, citing research by Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow, suggested that these incidents could prompt a political backlash that would help President Donald Trump’s bid for reelection. At the same time, he noted that, historically, nonviolent protests had been effective at driving politica…

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.

Because of course the people who voted for Donald Trump are uneducated and don't know science? Are you hearing yourself?

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

#404
post #6

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. 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…

Arthur Koestler in "Sleepwalkers" cites numerous criticisms from Vatican backed scholars that strongly suggest even though Copernicus may not have faced the unbridled legal wrath of the Church, that his career and reputation were severely tested for doing so.

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

#405
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Let's start with this: I don't know how I can explain why this kind of discourse opens trans people up to violence if we can't first agree why this is transphobic.

Fundamentally we keep having this conversation in humanity.

"This is wrong (homophobic, transphobic, racist, classist, casteist)"

"No it isn't!"

And over and over and over again. And we look back and think how could it have been possible that we were SO discriminatory in the past, but SO enlightened now, and yet we repeat the same mistakes again.

And you have some feminists that exclude trans women. And you have some black people perpetuating homophobia.

15 years ago we were having EXACTLY the same discourse about gay marriage as we do today about trans rights.

It's exhausting how much some humans are committed to making the lives of other humans on this planet shitty. Fuck, let people live their lives. We all only get one.

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

#406
post #6

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. 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…

There is a difference here. One was to maintain the power of a theocracy while the other is to protect the lives of individuals. Is it the right course of action? I don’t know but the motivations are definitely not analogous.

Salvation of every last immortal human soul was a deep and abiding concern of the church. A lot more so than the "woke" of today who would happily brand newborn babies of the wrong color into oppression hierarchies.

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

#407

Earlier 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.

People always say this. But I have a hard time believing things weren't more divisive, say, during The Vietnam War.

The internet makes conflicts more visible. It also attenuates them, so fewer people get killed. Physical conflict is transformed into digital conflict.

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

#408

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…

Arthur Koestler in "Sleepwalkers" cites numerous criticisms from Vatican backed scholars that strongly suggest even though Copernicus may not have faced the unbridled legal wrath of the Church, that his career and reputation were severely tested for doing so.

See my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32597071 for information about how Copernicus was received academically from an academic's point of view. Also worth recognizing is that it was Protestants, not Catholics, who were by far the harshest towards Copernicus, as Copernicus was harshly mocked by Luther and his predecessor Melanchthon.

Melanchthon:

"Some people believe that it is excellent and correct to work out a thing as absurd as did that Sarmatian [i.e., Polish] astronomer who moves the earth and stops the sun. Indeed, wise rulers should have curbed such light-mindedness."

"The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere [the celestial sphere] nor the sun revolves. … Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious."

Luther:

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon….This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

Also recognize your book is from 1959, before the internet, before many books were digitized, and before many of these things were debunked.

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

#409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Yall are getting it backwards:

I believe Jesus was God because he claimed to be God. Also, the "unlikely events" (aka miracles) don't disprove he existed and was God.

Other people have claimed to be God, too. They were either lying or were crazy. Jesus was neither.

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

#410

Quoted post unavailable.

> People keep asking about examples of work that exemplifies "potential harms [that] outweigh the benefit of publication This is a proposed change in policy. People are asking for examples that were previously allowed but now would be forbidden. > How about large scale human vivisection? An example of something that was previously forbidden and is still forbidden is not helpful.

It really, really isn't a change in policy, and that's why there's no need for examples that were "previously allowed" but now aren't.

This is a distillation and synthesis of existing policies in place at hundreds of major institutions and organizations with their own ethics policies for qualitatively and quantitatively estimating the harms and benefits of proposed research.

An anthropologist disturbing a culture to document it is a trade-off maybe not worth making. A summary of behaviors found in autism spectrum disorders that is insufficiently inclusive of their lived experience is a bad idea. This is the kind of evaluation researchers need to perform sufficiently to justify their work (and their funding), and they do it all the time.

Increasingly they also need to evaluate whether they themselves are fit to perform that evaluation, and the guidelines here suggest situations where researchers may want to look outside themselves, situations which hitherto were not as frequently considered as, for example, race, religion, or income level. Being more inclusive on what matters should be thought of as potential sources of bias or inadvertent harm is not a change in policy, it is an acknowledgement that the existing policy was not sufficiently well delineated.

Post reply on HN