It entirely unsurprising that an author cannot be found attached to this excrement
“Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
61–70 of 883 posts
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#62No, science must pursue the truth, no matter where it leads. There is no such thing as a hate fact.
you'd probably benefit from reading and thinking about this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
sadly, what is called a fact is a malleable thing in the hands of the ill-intentioned, and all too many bigots are more than happy to pass off pseudo-science as the real deal. "science" isn't some abstract thing, it's composed of people and their actions, and as i think every adult will recognize, people can be turbo-shitty. like every other human endeavor, it deserves a close eye and critical thought. (i say this as a big fan of science in general and a degree-holder in the physical sciences.)
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#63Quoted post unavailable.
> Farming equipment must respect the dignity and rights of all humans. Farmers must respect the dignity and rights of all humans. > The TCP protocol must respect the dignity and rights of all humans. Network Engineers must respect the dignity and rights of all humans. > Cinema projectors must respect the dignity and rights of all humans. Cinema owners must respect the dignity and rights of all humans.
Yes, that was the point of my comment. Seeing that it even got flagged I can sense people here are treading on thin ice for some reason
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#64No, science must pursue the truth, no matter where it leads. There is no such thing as a hate fact.
[flagged]
There was plenty of racism before the scientific method, there will be plenty after we ban using it to study anything related to race.
And this guidance won't prevent people from thinking and spreading racist ideas, it'll just keep people from studying anything related race.
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#65Science must only be objective. Science should not care one whit about humans or what we want/think/feel. We should respect people, there's a huge difference. As far as I'm concerned, this is the final nail in the coffin for nature magazine or whatever they call themselves now. This entire blog post is them contradicting themselves repeatedly.
Science is only objective. But scientists are subjective and biased. The paper is not speaking about how people feel, they are speaking on the subjectiveness of scientists leading to the harm of minority people. What do you think happened in Nazi Germany?
Certain lanes of inquiry that Nazi scientists engaged in were engaged in by many non-Nazi scientists. For example, craniometrics, despite it being now pretty conclusively shown to make no difference, was pursued as a science in both Germany and everywhere else. Just because its claims were untrue does not mean that those who honestly pursued it were not scientists. I mean, the hypothesis that head size affects brain size and thus intelligence makes intuitive sense. Those scientists who pursued such lines of inquiry and did so honestly and truthfully, and arrived at the proper conclusions based on the data (which many did), faithfully engaged in 'science'.
Of course, manipulating data for political ends is wrong, and using any evidence you collect to advocate for the slaughter or imprisonment of innocent people is also wrong, but these are philosophical, ethical, moral, and religious questions, not scientific ones.
There is a place for ethics in science... namely in the means in which one applies the scientific method (especially when experiments concern humans or animals). However, the data generated by the scientific method, if examined without bias, even if they're unpleasant, do not cause harm. The question of what to do with any unsavory facts is a question for ethics, philosophy, and religion.
Facts don't kill people. People do.
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#66Yet, 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…
>>Advancing knowledge and understanding is a fundamental public good. In some cases, however, potential harms to the populations studied may outweigh the benefit of publication Are they really advocating for self censorship in the sciences? And when the whims of societal taste turn or, God forbid (and yes, I put this with all irony intended), Twitter decides it doesn't like an opinion for five minutes... does science…
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 political change “mainly by encouraging warm elite discourse and media coverage.”
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The proposed medication is worse than the disease. Fight fascism/racism/whatever with state supported lies (of omission). What could go wrong?
If you read carefully I'm actually not proposing any specific course and I think the reality will be nuanced and highly context-specific.
What I am opposing is the idea that researchers should be completely disinterested in, even ignore, what other elements are interested in their work and how they might use it.
The consensus in this comment section is that that sort of ignorance is itself an ideal, and I think that's very wrong and has lead to obvious harms in the past. Research on any domain of human activity is a political act and produces a political product, the researchers need to be aware of that and actively participate in that part of the process as well. Wishing or pretending it were otherwise is dangerous.
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#68Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#69There is a lot of off the cuff reactions in the comments, most from non-scientists, who obviously did not read the actual guidelines that are being proposed, which primarily encourage full transparency and contextualization when scientists use group variables, and to avoid over generalization of findings by relying on stereotypes without empirical basis.
Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
#70Earlier 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.
> 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.