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

491–500 of 883 posts

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

#491

Post by MichaelCollins »

dcow wrote: post #167
throwawayacc2 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but the trappings of science have been used to dress the new religion of the west. Same old shit, we just don’t call it god now, we call it “the science”. We are romans in the early 5th century. What’s coming won’t be pretty.

Isn’t it crazy how easy it is to see but how inevitable the outcome ultimately is? Why must future generations repeat the mistakes of the past? This is the human condition.

Our technology has improved, but our brains? We've still got the same brains. Still susceptible to the same biases and fallacies now as we were two thousand years ago.

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

#492

Post by hden »

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.

"Good" is not well-defined so let’s rephrase it as "interests".

People with the same ideologies flocks together. So when conflict of interest happens, each flock believes that

> "We" are good and "they" are evil. > "We" are right and "they" are wrong.

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

#493

Post by strangeattractr »

devindotcom wrote: post #315

Quoted post unavailable.

Your reply is an extremely poor attempt to downplay this. This statement reads like it was lifted from an undergrad essay in a 'critical theory' course. There is so much written but so little said explicitly by design. The purpose of the statement is to announce the intent to stifle academic inquiry into areas which a fringe of people believe harmful. In such cases that harm is disputed, will Nature, by its own guidelines even be able to publish research that contradicts the claim of harm? Does that not cause more harm even if true?

If you don't see what this is you are either sympathetic to this particular ideology or simply naive. Instead of attempting to dismiss criticism by invoking vivisection, which is unaffected by this policy change, why not provide some examples of immoral research that is currently being published that this policy will prevent.

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

#494

Post by stainablesteel »

basically, "scientists" choose which results to not published based on the fact that they don't like a specific sociological result

this causes more trouble for those groups because the truth doesn't get out about negative and under-performing behaviors, creating no avenue for improvements

this is just the new brand of racism and it's sold to you by wealthy, college-attending white girls who care nothing about the consequences of their own actions

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

#495

Post by hilbert42 »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #488
brightball wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"Stop quoting laws, we carry swords" - Pompey (Who was later stabbed to death.)

Thus, by extension, it's why phasing out war is essentially impossible.

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

#496

Post by MichaelCollins »

WalterBright wrote: post #489
MichaelCollins wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> slavery was incompatible with industrialization. From what I understand, early industrialization gave a temporary boost to slavery. The cotton gin and textile factories greatly increased demand for cotton at a time when industrialization had not yet addressed the harvesting of cotton in the fields.

The cotton gin did indeed revive slave produced cotton when it came out. But it was hardly industrialization. It was a hand cranked box. But that was not enough by mid century, and the slave economy was foundering again.

Eli Whitney's patent depicts a hand-cranked cotton gin, but I believe by the mid 19th century they were making much larger cotton gins powered by water wheels or animal power (e.g. four mules walking around a shaft.) And on the cotton consumption side of the industry, mechanized thread spinning and power looms were by then a mature technology. The industrialization of textile industry began in the 1700s, particularly in the UK where they imported huge quantities of southern cotton.

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

#497

Post by worthless-trash »

landryraccoon wrote: post #457
thrown_22 wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He with the biggest gun wins. Now I'm not exactly sure why the side which is currently stoking the culture war is also the one that's disarmed itself, but here we are.

I’m curious, I genuinely dont know what sides you’re talking about. Who do you think is stoking the culture war?

Those repeating the mantra.

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

#499

Post by [deleted] »

landryraccoon wrote: post #457
thrown_22 wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He with the biggest gun wins. Now I'm not exactly sure why the side which is currently stoking the culture war is also the one that's disarmed itself, but here we are.

I’m curious, I genuinely dont know what sides you’re talking about. Who do you think is stoking the culture war?

[deleted]

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

#500

Post by PuppyTailWags »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #475
remarkEon wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I think it depends on what's considered political. Family estrangement due to religious differences (such as marrying a catholic) was so commonplace it was practically a sitcom joke. There was also family estrangement about potentially dating outside your race.
Post reply on HN