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

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

#651

Post by bobkazamakis » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 8:37 AM UTC

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”

#652

Post by ZeroGravitas » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 8:38 AM UTC

FFRefresh wrote: post #587

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 abili…

https://academic.oup.com/california-scholarship-online/book/...

> This chapter shows that the right wing's essentialized construct of the Jew as criminal in the Weimar period was translated into policy and action in Germany after 1933. Until 1938, when the Nazis unequivocally embraced the guiding principle that “The Jew is outside the law,” they often took pains to charge individual Jews with specific crimes, usually focusing on technical aspects of tax laws and currency-exchange regulations. On the one hand, they sought to exploit the racist agenda and traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes. On the other, they wanted to give the impression that the Nazi State was simply zealous in applying the letter of the law.

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

#653

Post by bawolff » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 8:41 AM UTC

the_omegist wrote: post #601

bawolff wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Then perhaps you should be a little less materialist? Psychological violence can be more terrible than physical violence. And ideologies caused more damages and deaths in history than any conventional "war".

Yes,in extreme cases psychological abuse can be worse than physical violence, but you kind of need to back up what you're talking about is such a case *.

Its sort of like if you said, beans are just as bad as being shot, then later clarified that you are talking about fatal food poisioning from bad beans. I mean, i guess technically fatal food poisioning is about as bad as being shot, but if you just say "beans are like being shot" without qualification, people are going to think that's a crazy statement, because it is.

* to be clear im talking hypothetically. I don't agree that "trans-activism" (whatever the fuck that means) is violence in any way shape or form.

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

#654

Post by Broken_Hippo » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 8:43 AM UTC

selfhoster11 wrote: post #363

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the same thing. If you know the kid next door is being abused - and you do nothing about it, you are partially at fault for the violence happening to the kid. If you do something (call child services, for example) and it fails, you tried, and should try again lest you fall in the same trap. It is similar with police violence and racism. If you sit idly by and don't demand change, despite knowing people ar…

The obvious, yet clearly heartless way question to ask is, why should you care? In the first example, the kid is not yours. A failed intervention may carry the risk of violence being used against you as revenge. If you’re unfortunate, the police may refuse normal interaction if you later need it (say, because they found no evidence, or if they for some reason ignore domestic violence as a rule of thumb). You’re stick…

"The obvious, yet clearly heartless way question to ask is, why should you care? In the first example, the kid is not yours."

I'm sorry, are you really asking why I wouldn't care about others in general? In some cases, it doesn't matter if I know them.

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

#655

Post by trashtester » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 9:02 AM UTC

dcow wrote: post #27

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…

Moreover, how can any of these be enforced, and by whom? At least you know who your church authority figures are and who to criticize. Where do we even start if we let Twitter outrage decide whether science is potentially harmful and should be allowed or not? This is worse than religion because it’s pretending to be rational. And many many people will be fooled.

Many religions start out pretending to be rational. It just so happens that a millennium or two later, science may have advanced to a point where religion starts to look more and more allegorical.

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

#656

Post by n4r9 » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 9:13 AM UTC

Banana699 wrote: post #279

n4r9 wrote: post #108

There is a very clear trend in the HN crowd's reaction to this statement, so I'm inclined to offer a defense. I'm not linked to Nature in any way, just of a rebellious bent. The principle objections to the guidance appear to fall into the following categories: * They threaten the objectivity of science * They prevent the publication of "heretical"/"non-PC" results * They are too vague I strongly recommend that people…

> a journal has a great ethical responsibility for the impact of what it publishes and is within its rights to say "no" on that basis. No. This is really hilarious, but really though, No. The whole point of science is no content-related norms. You can put content-related norms wherever you want. You can put them in your useless HR departments, you can put them in the brainwashing (uh, ahem, "orientation") of new hire…

I don't feel that the guidelines could or would ban entire topics from being published. Do you have any specific topics in mind?

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

#657

Post by n4r9 » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 9:21 AM UTC

timr wrote: post #357

freejazz wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To do you the favor, as ashkenazi jew (at higher risk for a number of different genetic illnesses) nothing about my understanding of this is predicated upon the concept of a race. That there is a genetically distinct haplotype group that corresponds to many folk that share these traits with me, is sufficient. By the way, I don't think "African descent" is a race by any means of my understanding of the word...

I grant you that "Ashkenazi Jew" is not a race by any conventional definition. But no, there's no "genetically distinct haplotype" that defines it. It's "Jews from central and eastern Europe", vs. those from Africa, the Middle East and Spain. [1] It's a broad, vague category, that is nonetheless sometimes still useful. Just like race. We don't pretend that Ashkenazi Jews don't exist, or are verboten from polite discu…

So you agree that humans do not have biological races, but you disagree with guidelines that promote a more accurate terminology?

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

#658

Post by ZeroGravitas » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 9:26 AM UTC

timr wrote: post #357

freejazz wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To do you the favor, as ashkenazi jew (at higher risk for a number of different genetic illnesses) nothing about my understanding of this is predicated upon the concept of a race. That there is a genetically distinct haplotype group that corresponds to many folk that share these traits with me, is sufficient. By the way, I don't think "African descent" is a race by any means of my understanding of the word...

I grant you that "Ashkenazi Jew" is not a race by any conventional definition. But no, there's no "genetically distinct haplotype" that defines it. It's "Jews from central and eastern Europe", vs. those from Africa, the Middle East and Spain. [1] It's a broad, vague category, that is nonetheless sometimes still useful. Just like race. We don't pretend that Ashkenazi Jews don't exist, or are verboten from polite discu…

"Black people" isn't a genetic category either. So maybe you should follow these oh-so Orwellian ethics guidelines and define what you mean by that and note whether it was a class that was self assigned by the group or by yourself or third parties and how that assignment was made.

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

#659

Post by wrp » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 9:26 AM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #647

WalterBright wrote: post #277

Science has nothing to do with the dignity and rights of all humans. Science just a mechanism for separating truth from nonsense.

I don't think that's true - science is a social process just as much as it is a method; it has institutions, funding, public relations, disputes on technical and non-technical points (article is case in point). As a social institution, it is well within the purview of social norms, unless we are to exempt scientists from criticism of their activities while wearing a lab coat (or to render such criticism incoherent) -…

You and he are using "science" for different things. He is talking about a methodology, and you are talking about social institutions. It's like the difference between "prayer" and "the Church". The methodology of prayer is independent of what social agenda the Church may pursue.

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

#660

Post by chaps » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 9:36 AM UTC

DocTomoe wrote: post #619

irrational wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Wikipedia says violence broke out a day after the George Floyd incident [1]: > After the main protest group disbanded on the night of May 26, a much smaller group, numbering in the hundreds, spray-painted the building, threw rocks and bottles, broke a window at the station, and vandalized a squad car. A skirmish soon broke out between the vandals and protesters trying to stop them. At around 8 p.m., police fired tear…

Not so fun fact: on May 29th in Chicago, the address with the highest number of arrests by far was at Trump tower, against peaceful protesters. Then the police department lied about the number of arrests that happened for looting, saying that there were more arrests for looting than protesters.

If you're looking to build a better understanding of what happened, you might want to reconsider using wikipedia as your source and try to find local news that takes a critical look at policing.

Also... "water bottles"? Come on.

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/chicago-police-arrested-more...