Live data from Hacker News

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

nature.com

71–80 of 883 posts

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

#71

No, science must pursue the truth, no matter where it leads. There is no such thing as a hate fact.

[flagged]

Okay. Then let's censor science, and put an asterisk next to every published study: "If the results had been different, they would not have been published."

And when someone claims "research shows your prejudice is unfounded", one can justifiably answer with "because the findings have been cherry-picked to support a pre-determined conclusion. So I will trust my gut instinct, because the scientists have admitted their research is subordinate to propaganda."

Though I have a feeling social science will try to be very discreet about what kind of filtering they're doing, and will hope that, when they disseminate findings they like, that we will have forgotten they're self-confessed propagandists first, and scientists second.

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

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Censoring yourself on what some other person may do with your words is folly.

Yes you can either fully censor yourself or publish it with no regard for how it will be used by others. There are certainly no other options.

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

#74
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…

There is a difference here. One was to maintain the power of a theocracy while the other is to protect the lives of individuals. Is it the right course of action? I don’t know but the motivations are definitely not analogous.

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

#75
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>This is worse than religion because it’s pretending to be rational. And many many people will be fooled. I hate to make the comparison because it's such a trope, but, IMO this is one of the most insidious things the Nazis did to indoctrinate the population: They did things like send people into schools and they would cherry-pick the weakest, least intelligent, least-liked Jewish kid they could find and set him along…

and this is, if you read the actual guidelines proposed, exactly what they are guarding against: inappropriate overgeneralization.

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

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Politicians and populists pushed out false information, and then squashed anyone that tried to argue against the state as "radical", "harmful" and "against progress and science" at the point of a gun, refused to let people ask questions or have dissenting views which led them to the next step of being allowed to exterminate undesirables because no one was allowed to argue because "The Science was settled" We could of…

>Politicians and populists pushed out false information, and then squashed anyone that tried to argue against the state as "radical", "harmful" and "against progress and science"

I agree. This was a political problem which the article is actually trying to address.

> It seems to me the problem isn't and never has been science, it is when a single institution, society, or government gets to dictate what "truth" is...

This is not what the article is advocating.

This seems very rational to me, for example:

"Authors should use the terms sex (biological attribute) and gender (shaped by social and cultural circumstances) carefully in order to avoid confusing both terms. "

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

#80
It's one thing - one correct and good thing - to specify an ethical framework that says all people are of equal intrinsic moral value, and therefore have equal rights as human beings. It's another incorrect and bad thing to deny reality and specify a factual framework that demands that all people be claimed to be scientifically indistinguishable, having no identifiable characteristics that differ along social groupings.

Point 1, that they can deny "Content that is premised upon the assumption of inherent biological, social, or cultural superiority or inferiority of one human group over another based on race, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, disease, (dis)ability, or other socially constructed or socially relevant groupings (hereafter referred to as socially constructed or socially relevant human groupings)." is pretty hard to disagree with. Such content is morally wrong and should not be published, can't we just agree to treat everyone with respect?

On the other hand, Point 2 is qualitatively different, in that rather than considering the immoral and subjective value judgements that may motivate some researchers, it calls into question the objective factual truths that some researchers are allowed to uncover: It says they can deny "Content that undermines — or could reasonably be perceived to undermine — the rights and dignities of an individual or human group on the basis of socially constructed or socially relevant human groupings." This is a prohibition on publishing facts that some people may abuse to justify their abhorrent moral position.

For example, as a tall Dutchman, it's a fact that I'm able to reach things on shelves that my shorter coworkers cannot reach without assistance. At our office, we have a few freakishly tall Dutch guys, and some shorter Hispanic women. If, hypothetically, you did a study of the time it takes us to dry and put away dishes in the break room, you'll observe that Thais needs to move a stepstool around to put away mugs on the top shelf, taking significantly more time, and that Dave and I can touch the ceiling flat-footed and need no such aid, so we Dutchmen can complete the task faster. To be very clear - that's a fact, not a value judgement! It should not be misconstrued to undermine the position that men have equal value to women, or to suggest that Hollanders deserve more rights than Columbians! That's ridiculous and wrong!

It is unfortunate that there are some people with a morally abhorrent worldview who will seek to use factual differences to justify their cruel behavior. But prohibiting the dissemination of those facts does not make the fact disappear or become untrue, it only makes the prohibitors look foolish and makes the study of those differences the exclusive domain of the discriminatory people.

Post reply on HN