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

591–600 of 883 posts

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

#591

Post by bawolff »

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…

> I think trans activism with kids is a severe violence.

You think trans activism is equivalent to shooting someone?

I mean, i think most people are going to dismiss you as crazy if you think words and ideas of any form are equivalently violent to shooting someone in the head. At the very least you would need to back up such a radical proposition with some very compelling arguments.

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

#592

Post by MichaelCollins »

WalterBright wrote: post #563
MichaelCollins wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The textile industry was being industrialized - but it wasn't being operated by slaves. An educated workforce is needed to operate industrial machinery, and it was illegal to teach slaves to read. Industrialization and slavery are incompatible. Forced labor has never been able to compete with free labor.

I guess my point is that industrialization doesn't/didn't occur uniformly across entire industries; some aspects of industries were mechanized before others, temporarily increasing demand for manual labor in the per-industrialized segments to keep up with the machines. Textile factories create demand for field workers, steel mills and steam engines create demand for coal miners, railways create demand for workers that lay rail, etc.

Another example, in an alternate timeline perhaps, might have been the development of the western territories. Instead of Chinese immigrants building most of the rail, it probably could have been a very profitable venture for slave owners. Slave labor was used for railway construction in the south, so it's not far-fetched.

I agree that slavery was destined to lose in the end, but I don't think industrialization is a direct path to the economic obsolescence of slavery, because slave labor can compliment partial industrialization.

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

#593

Post by desmosxxx »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #473
midoridensha wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

k

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

#594

Post by istinetz »

irrational wrote: post #589
yes_really wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

I have seen several videos of entirely black crowds looting stores. How is this Trump's fault? How is this "pure white supremacy"?

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

#595

Post by jjcon »

Aunche wrote: post #550
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

I’m not sure that downvoting (disagreeing - by common usage though it shouldn’t necessarily be that way) is the same as calling for the censorship of.

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

#597

Post by istinetz »

andreskytt wrote: post #568
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…

Exactly. Anything novel is, by definition, risky. Therefore any and all research has the potential to harm people. What the article says is, that there is an apparently all-knowing group of people, who will decide, where an article lies on a scale between abstract algebra and direct calls to genocide in terms of its impact on people. Oh, and the same group of people is also directly interested in publishing (so they’…

And don't forget, they are also extremely politically invested. Many sociologists get into the field explicitly to "fight racism" or what have you, and the vast majority of the field is very left-leaning.

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

#598

Post by nathias »

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…

Even if this was true what you are describing is impossible to predict. School shooter are not scientists and don't comprehend anything past basic stuff served to them by the media. Doing research with these condiderations in mind probably fuels extremism much more and makes people (justifiably) sceptical of science in general.

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

#599

Post by throwawaylinux »

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…

Sorry you feel that way, I prefer to trust the science.

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

#600

Post by landryraccoon »

thrown_22 wrote: post #535
landryraccoon wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Which side is currently trying to make science fit their world view?

I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. My first guess is that climate change deniers are the biggest culprits of trying to make science fit a contradictory world view, and my second guess would be anti-vaccine advocates.
Post reply on HN