“Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans” • Hacker News Board

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

#471

Post by brightball » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 2:41 AM UTC

fatherzine wrote: post #392

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well connected - and I think this comparison is becoming more apt each passing day. These statements and policies are just so… egotistical … for lack of a better word. What happens when we stop agreeing on what the “good” is? How can you claim to respect all humans when you don’t respect the human cognitive ability to disagree? Thanks for posting.

Q: What happens when we stop agreeing on what the “good” is? A. I am right and you are evil. Age old conflict resolution method.

A sword fight doesn’t determine who’s right, just who’s left.

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

#472

Post by hilbert42 » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 2:41 AM UTC

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #11

tarakat wrote: 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…

Well connected - and I think this comparison is becoming more apt each passing day. These statements and policies are just so… egotistical … for lack of a better word. What happens when we stop agreeing on what the “good” is? How can you claim to respect all humans when you don’t respect the human cognitive ability to disagree? Thanks for posting.

In philosophy good is known as a simple notion, that is it cannot be reduced further. We cannot define its length, breadth etc., even adding very or little to it doesn't put a measure on it. Saying '0.5' or '10%' of good is essentially meaningless.

Good and bad, etc. are metaphysical constructs and thus we have a fundamental problem when using these terms in connection with Science which intrinsically and inextricability measurement-driven.

We need to be very careful using these terms when we're referring to or discussing Science and scientific research or conflict will be inevitable.

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

#473

Post by kelseyfrog » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 2:43 AM UTC

midoridensha wrote: post #456

kelseyfrog wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"…

I see it as pure laziness. The purpose of writing is to communicate and exchange information. Just like misformatting some markup language will result in communications errors, so will not writing proper English with an English-reading audience. Emojis are different; they're an addition, meant to convey extra meaning or information that's difficult to convey with pure text. Omitting capitals doesn't do this; it just…

August 25, 2022

Dear respondent,

Your points are duly noted. However; may I suggest you write in a more formal register? Your prose reflects the lack of effort with which I am displaying by using this very form of writing. A higher degree of effort on your part will demonstrate the level of commitment to the written word that this audience expects. Please respond in kind.

Yours Truly,

kelseyfrog

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

#474

Post by thereare5lights » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 2:43 AM UTC

rurp wrote: post #271

psyc wrote: post #212

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…

> societal disagreements were more civil several decades ago.

That's because white people violently killed, lynched, and massacred everyone that dared to cause "trouble" prior to the Civil Rights Movement.

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

#475

Post by MichaelCollins » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 2:45 AM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #401

puffoflogic wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inte…

I think it depends how you look at it. The intensity of the conflict has diminished, but I think the scope of the conflict has increased. There are fewer bombs going off, but there seems to be a lot more family estrangement due to political differences.

The partisan lines in my extended family haven't changed for as long as I can remember, but there are fewer get-togethers and more political arguments at the dinner table when they do happen. The aunt and uncle that once were my god parents have now stopped talking to my parents; nobody's political opinions changed but differences in opinion that were once barely worth mentioning are now considered actually evil.

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

#476

Post by staticman2 » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 2:45 AM UTC

drorco wrote: post #78

Can 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.

Journal articles aren't necessarily about discoveries, the results of the study may contribute nothing other than "noise" that will be creatively interpreted by a community.

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

#477

Post by justnotworthit » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 2:46 AM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #320

AlanYx wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that the linked policy says almost the exact opposite of Fermi's statement, implying that ignorance is sometimes better than knowledge: "...considerations of harm can occasionally supersede the goal of seeking or sharing new knowledge, and a decision not to undertake or not to publish a project may be warranted."

Well, sometimes information can cause harm. For example, revealing a terminal diagnosis to a patient could lead to suicide. I don't think science should be censored, scientific inquiry should continue with integrity regardless of what people think. What I think is people who can't handle it should not have access to the truths revealed. I generally believe in unrestricted free information but I've been rethinking tha…

It was common in the middle of the 20th century to not tell a terminally ill patient he/she was dying. We look back at that with horror.

In your example, I'd prefer chosing (assisted) suicide or not. Surely you're not doing me a favor by not letting me die how I want.

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

#478

Post by hugh-avherald » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 2:46 AM UTC

JBits wrote: post #463

alphabetting wrote: post #2

I posted this to garner some discussion but wanted to be clear it's not an endorsement. The new IRB ethics guidelines Nature is pushing here is absurd and would be a disaster in my opinion.

I genuinely don't understand what is so problematic about this article. Is the article's guidelines even binding in the first place? Many here seem to be saying that this editoral is promoting censorship, but that's not my interpretation at all. It just seems to be encouraging "respectful, non-stigmatizing language to avoid perpetuating stereotypes", avoid conflating different but similar terms and in particular aski…

Yes it is binding. Articles can be rejected or modified on these grounds.

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

#479

Post by bigbluedots » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 2:50 AM UTC

While we're at it, why not protect the rights of non-human animals as well?

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

#480

Post by apeace » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 2:50 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #342

Here's an example of scientific research being questioned for such ethical reasons, in a less familiar area. A genetic cure for hereditary deafness looks possible. Here's the objection: "Members of the signing Deaf community argue that research which aims to eliminate or cure deafness is a form of cultural genocide. The argument goes like this: the use of gene therapy to cure hereditary deafness would result in small…

Can I infer from this comment that you disapprove of the Deaf community's stance on this?

If so, I suggest reaching out to your local Deaf community and spending some time with them. Maybe take an ASL class. You will find that, indeed, there is a unique culture in the Deaf community. You may not end up agreeing that deafness should never be cured, but it will at least give you some context you seem to be missing.

Since you said cochlear implants "already work in many people who are totally deaf" I think you may be missing the most crucial part of one of the quotes you gave: An implant is not a ‘cure’ and an implanted individual is still deaf.

Cochlear implants don't let you hear very well. Most users still rely heavily on lip reading and sign language.

I will give a personal anecdote. I am not deaf, but I have taken ASL classes and engaged with the Deaf community. I met one person who was born totally deaf but got cochlear implants as a child. She cannot converse with hearing people as normal. She is impressively good at lip reading, but still misses a lot of nuance in conversation, and her speaking voice does not sound like a normal person's. So she has been ostracized from social and professional groups. At the same time, she is also ostracized from the Deaf community, because she can't sign as fluently as a child who grew up signing, and the majority of the community is against implants. So she has the worst of both worlds.

So, if I'm correct and your implication is "Obviously deafness should be cured," then I think you may be missing a lot of cultural context and some facts about how the implants work. Perhaps a 100% effective genetic cure would change the discussion somehow, but I'm not sure it changes the cultural implications.