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

581–590 of 883 posts

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

#581

Post by WatchDog »

nubero wrote: post #175
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."

Indeed… The rot has spread frighteningly far.

"There you have it, you see how far the termites have spread, and how long and well they've dined." - Christopher Hitchens

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

#582

Post by rhcom2 »

drekipus wrote: post #558
bglazer wrote: post #485

This is in Nature Human Behavior. This is a social science/psychology journal, a field which is suffering from the reproducibility crisis, perhaps worse than any other field. So, any result in this field should be viewed with significant skepticism. This is true for research into population group differences, and extremely true for IQ research into race, which is almost hopelessly noisy and confounded. It is a simple…

> This should be handled with care, and extra consideration should be given to whether the tenuous, fallible results from this research will result in violence. What is "results in violence" though? One person's violence would be another person's justice. I think trans activism with kids is a severe violence. Would research in allowing transgenderism for children be considered violence or not in your eyes? I'm sure t…

> "trans activism with kids"

What does this even mean? Medical care?

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

#583

Post by GameOfFrowns »

guelo wrote: post #567
drekipus wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This should be handled with care, and extra consideration should be given to whether the tenuous, fallible results from this research will result in violence. What is "results in violence" though? One person's violence would be another person's justice. I think trans activism with kids is a severe violence. Would research in allowing transgenderism for children be considered violence or not in your eyes? I'm sure t…

[flagged]

[flagged]

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

#584

Post by nubero »

cetahfh14615 wrote: post #577
nubero wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I for one think “the goal of equality” should be discarded. People are to be treated equally and we already have the declaration of universal human rights as a foundational and international document for that. If you want people to end up all “being equal” to one another you will just end up on the farm, where all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. Also, I think it quite amusing that you cal…

you're sort of assuming what I mean by "equality" I'm not talking about leveling, I'm talking about something more like job applications that are completely race-sex-etc blind, where that signal isn't even allowed into the mix. I think that in a truly meritocratic system you'll see a diverse representation. No, it might not be perfectly diverse, but it would lead to more (and fairer) diversity and not less

In the international FIDE list of chess grandmasters, 39 out of 1953 are female. That’s 2%. And while I’m certain that there’s some icky misogynistic men who have made some decisions in that regard, I’m equally certain that we will never see the ratio being fifty-fifty. Not even close.

That being said, I really don’t care what we will see or what the outcome will be in a truly meritocratic system. I’m just interested in the merit.

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

#586

Post by rhcom2 »

GameOfFrowns wrote: post #583
guelo wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Those links don't support any of your claims. Child grooming is a real thing and the right wing media has now made it a new insult for LGBT people or behavior they don't agree with, something you're clearly participating in.

The article from out.com even details the harassment this kid has dealt with from conservatives.

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

#587

Post by FFRefresh »

bglazer wrote: post #485

This is in Nature Human Behavior. This is a social science/psychology journal, a field which is suffering from the reproducibility crisis, perhaps worse than any other field. So, any result in this field should be viewed with significant skepticism. This is true for research into population group differences, and extremely true for IQ research into race, which is almost hopelessly noisy and confounded. It is a simple…

How can you be sure any research won't result in violence? How do you establish whether a given piece of research/data will result in violence?

Is your basic operating model for this: "Never show any data that shows there are group differences, because it can be used by violent extremists"?

If that is your operating model, do you support getting rid of ANY data out there that shows differences between groups in ability/behavior, as it could result in violence? For instance, should we ban all public violent crime reporting, if that showed group differences, as it would be something used by those violent extremists you mention?

diu vivere tabula rasa!

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

#588

Post by bawolff »

bglazer wrote: post #485

This is in Nature Human Behavior. This is a social science/psychology journal, a field which is suffering from the reproducibility crisis, perhaps worse than any other field. So, any result in this field should be viewed with significant skepticism. This is true for research into population group differences, and extremely true for IQ research into race, which is almost hopelessly noisy and confounded. It is a simple…

So hypothetically, say the reasearch is well founded, reproducible, gold standard, etc.

If you think it would be ok then, why are we talking about "dignity" when instead we could have the less controversial statement "science research must not be dogshit quality".

If you don't believe so, why are we talking about quality?

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

#589

Post by irrational »

yes_really wrote: post #578
bglazer wrote: post #485

This is in Nature Human Behavior. This is a social science/psychology journal, a field which is suffering from the reproducibility crisis, perhaps worse than any other field. So, any result in this field should be viewed with significant skepticism. This is true for research into population group differences, and extremely true for IQ research into race, which is almost hopelessly noisy and confounded. It is a simple…

IQ research is the one area in social sciences that does not suffer from reproducibility crisis. You're clearly not against it because of reproducibility; you are against it because it goes against your ideological worldview. > Second, research results in population group differences are social poison. They are memetic viruses that fuel violent extremism. We had a full summer of violent riots because of the "Black Li…

No post body was provided.

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

#590

Post by josefx »

midoridensha wrote: post #432
Banana699 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know the people behind statments like these are coming to it with extremly unintelligent and bad faith definitions and intentions, but the actual words are actually correct. If you had the option to delay humanity's discovery of atomic bombs to late 20th century or after, and therefore delay any substantial deep understanding of the atomic physics beneath, you would probably do it. If you had the atomic bomb, you p…

>Fermi was probably talking about inevitable things, e.g. if climate is already worsening beyond human limits it's always good to know even if it's too late to do anything. But if knowledge (or our pursuit of it) would lead to new dangers, its perfecly reasonable to (try) to limit knowledge and its spread or pursuit. Yes, it's like teaching small children how to make poisons and bombs. It's really much better that ch…

Why would I need to make bombs when I could just collect the remains of the new years celebration from the road every first January? My parents made sure we had oversight and knew what we were dealing with even if it was only the fun small stuff (that could still burn your face off).

> It's really much better that children be kept ignorant of such things: this knowledge isn't going to help them, or the world, it's only going to cause problems. Adult humans really aren't any better; they're just bigger children.

Yeah, because accidentally mixing cleaning supplies in a way that creates a toxic gas cloud is really better than knowing that common household items can kill you if you aren't careful. Or getting monoxide poisoning because no one told you that using gas grills inside can kill.

Yeah, keep the kids ignorant of dangerous aspects of the world. If they are lucky they will die well before they have to navigate the world on their own.

Post reply on HN