[HN Gopher] "Science must respect the dignity and rights of all ... ___________________________________________________________________ "Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans" Author : alphabetting Score : 141 points Date : 2022-08-25 15:31 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nature.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com) | effingwewt wrote: | Science 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. | PsySecGroup wrote: | FollowingTheDao wrote: | 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? | buscoquadnary wrote: | 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 course also talk about how the centralized | control of the science of genetics in the Soviet Union led to | mass famines that killed millions and anyone who disagreed | was put to death. | | 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 and "the science is settled" at | the point of a gun, not that science gives us answers we | don't like. | FollowingTheDao wrote: | >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. " | anon291 wrote: | 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. | throwaway8582 wrote: | > But scientists are subjective and biased | | Maybe, but how much does that matter? If the bias of these | scientists is leading them to publish incorrect or low | quality research, then Nature should reject it on the grounds | that it's bad science. The fact that Nature feels the need to | publish this is basically an admission that the political | ideology of their leadership is not able to stand up to | scientific scrutiny. | | > What do you think happened in Nazi Germany? | | Probably something a lot like this: Powerful institutions | sacrificing objectivity to push propaganda and ideology | falcrist wrote: | Human-created science carries human biases and so does | engineering and even math which is supposed to be pure and | objective. | | James Burke presented this idea really well in episode 10 of | The Day The Universe Changed. Biases sneak in when you decide | what you're studying, how you're studying it, how you collect | data, how you interpret the data, etc. | | The process itself might be unbiased, but that doesn't mean | the application of that process is devoid of bias. Anyone | remember the stanford prison experiment, the machine learning | chatbot that 4chan turned to racism, or however many AIs | people have designed that have looked at data and drawn | racist conclusions? | | Are these things racist because racial stereotypes are | objective immutable facts, or because the bots don't | understand the context of those stereotypes? | | It's probably prudent to figure out the answer to that | question before publishing. At least present a few hypotheses | to explain the results. | PeterisP wrote: | If something will be destroyed by the truth, perhaps it should | be. | jmull wrote: | - is it desirable for science be beneficial to people? - if so, | doesn't that judgement need to be made? - in respect to whether | or not to publish a paper or article, who should make the | judgement as to whether the science is beneficial or not, if not | the publisher? | | I think if you're going to object to this, you need to do so on | the substance of the guidelines. Otherwise you're just | substituting your own editorial judgement for that of the | publisher, in effect claiming the authority of what is fit to | publish for yourself. | anon31337 wrote: | jaywalk wrote: | _People_ must respect the dignity and rights of all humans. | | _Science_ must be free from this nonsense, and just be science. | What a joke. | mmmpop wrote: | Science is (and should continue to be) cold and unfeeling. | That's why it's science. Science! | nathanaldensr wrote: | The scientific method is a process. There is no need to | anthropomorphize it. What exactly are you trying to say? | dcow wrote: | Meta comment: It's disappointing to see this axed from the front | page. While I agree we should generally avoid low quality flame- | war inducing content, the fact that _Nature_ , one of the most | prestigious and renown scientific magazines/journals has adopted | such a viewpoint certainly warrants exposure and discussion. | remram wrote: | I don't see any evidence that it was "axed", it is not getting | that many upvotes and is falling to later pages. | dcow wrote: | It was top 5 or 10 or so on the front page and then after a | page refresh gone. It has more votes than many of the topics | on the front page and discussion is active. Maybe just really | unlucky timing on my part but not the normal progression you | see. I know these type topics are typically removed from the | spotlight by staff out of a presumption that the comments | won't be productive. I think that's fair in some cases, but | if it was done in this case I am stating my disagreement. | john-shaffer wrote: | IIRC, posts with more comments than votes are automatically | penalized. It is #11 on the front page now, though. | throwawayacc2 wrote: | I noticed the exact same thing. I found the post on the | front page. A short time after, mid second page. Last I | checked it was on the 3rd. I suspect there's a bit too much | wrongthink going on here and someone doesn't like it. The | priesthood is displeased with the vulgar masses in this | thread. | sjducb wrote: | I think the best way to help ethinic minorities and women is to | get accurate facts about their lives. If you want to improve the | world then you have to start from the truth. | NotYourLawyer wrote: | No, science must pursue the truth, no matter where it leads. | There is no such thing as a hate fact. | volkadav wrote: | 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.) | kodyo wrote: | Positing ideas that can be disproven is science. It's also | how thinking works. | nitrixion wrote: | Sorry, this is completely off topic. Why aren't you using | capital letters? I've seen this trend starting to gain more | traction and it makes no sense to me. | singlow wrote: | If the science is bad, then the science is bad. If you do | good science and find a result that doesn't fit your | preconceived ideas of right and wrong, that doesn't make the | science bad. You don't need to be concerned with the ethical | impact of the truth, but you do need to be concerned with the | ethics of your process. | | I don't understand what the actions of pseudo-science bigots | has to do with someone who is doing real science. Idiots will | be idiots regardless of what real science says. | freejazz wrote: | Oh, good and bad. It's just that simple! | giraffe_lady wrote: | Right we just publish the facts. If another group wants to use | it to justify genocide that's on them. I wash my hands of it. | | This is of course merely hypothetical and factual research | results have never been used in this way. Similarly no | scientific consensus has ever turned out to be wholly incorrect | after being used to perpetrate atrocities. | blueflow wrote: | What would you do when someone says "Women are inferior | because the Sun shines?" | red75prime wrote: | The proposed medication is worse than the disease. Fight | fascism/racism/whatever with state supported lies (of | omission). What could go wrong? | giraffe_lady wrote: | 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. | throwawayacc2 wrote: | > 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. | | Why? | | > 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. | | You think that because you have biases, like all humans | do. You say harms can arise. Let's try to do an exercise. | It's the late 40s early 50s and research is finally | starting to show there are, in fact, no real biological | races of humans. We are one human race. The dutiful | scientist at that time considers the society he is in, | the notions of morality he has and decides it would be | harmful to publish his research. Who knows what some | crazy extremists will do with this fact. They might give | the blacks rights, they might rile them up, they might | they might even allow miscegenation! Bear in mind, all | these were societal harms at that time! | | Is this the future you wish? Or this scenario doesn't | count because it's the wrong politics? Have we found the | end all be all of morality and must now protect it at all | costs, even from facts if need be? | | > 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 | | I disagree. The way I see it, there is no politics in | science. Science is not a set of beliefs. It's a process. | It's a method of observing empirical reality and | producing methods to describe it. | | > Wishing or pretending it were otherwise is dangerous. | | For whom? | commandlinefan wrote: | > I think the reality will be nuanced and highly context- | specific | | If you actually think that, you haven't been paying much | attention to the behavior of the Twitter mob over the | past few years. | JamesBarney wrote: | 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. | vorpalhex wrote: | Censoring yourself on what some other person may do with your | words is folly. | giraffe_lady wrote: | 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. | tarakat wrote: | 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. | throwawayacc2 wrote: | > Right we just publish the facts. If another group wants to | use it to justify genocide that's on them. I wash my hands of | it. | | Unironically this. | | Science is here to present facts. | | Politics is here to decide what we do with the facts. | | Do not mix the two. | twblalock wrote: | > Similarly no scientific consensus has ever turned out to be | wholly incorrect after being used to perpetrate atrocities. | | How do you suppose it was proved incorrect? | | If people can't question the current consensus because it | might offend someone, then the current consensus cannot be | improved or overturned. | cycomanic wrote: | I think there is a lot more nuance than people admit. Lets take | an example of we have a deadly disease spreading through the | population (much more deadly than covid) . Let's say a | scientist finds out that the disease is primarily (exclusively) | spread by red haired people. Should they just publish the | finding? The fact becoming openly known might lead to mobs of | people chasing red hairs and locking them up or even lynching | them. A better way is likely to quietly talk to the authorities | first. | | Another example could be that there is some disease that is | entirely harmless but 100% infectious and deadly to some group | (e.g. Black people). Now should that research just be released | into the public? This might encourage some groups to | purposefully infect these people, thus putting them in | significant danger. | | I admit these are somewhat hypothetical scenarios, but you said | the truth should always come up,. I just give counterexamples. | I'm sure we had many situations where resesearch was suppressed | in reality for some reason or another. | hbrn wrote: | The question is where and how do you draw the boundary for | censorship? If you can't use science to draw the boundary, | what is left? Let humans with their own biases do it? This | inevitably turns into dictatorship. | | You can come up with hypotheticals where truth strategy _may_ | harm some people. But censorship strategy is _guaranteed_ to | harm more people in the long run. | | Also your hypotheticals can be easily countered: | | > disease that is entirely harmless but 100% infectious and | deadly to some group (e.g. Black people). Now should that | research just be released into the public? This might | encourage some groups to purposefully infect these people, | thus putting them in significant danger. | | Let's say you decided to censor your research. And then few | years later the groups that you mentioned got lucky enough to | discover the same disease. Now, because your research wasn't | public, the world was not able to develop a cure. | | The road to hell is paved with good intentions. | mizzack wrote: | You don't need to make up a hypothetical disease. Just look | at the current monkeypox situation with health authorities | waffling on how best to message that 98% of cases are in men | who have sex with men. | | It's simultaneously totally relevant information from a | public health standpoint while also being stigmatizing. | Completely ignoring the facts/suppressing that info to avoid | stigma would contribute to greater spread within and outside | of that community, and is irresponsible. Nuance, indeed. | dqpb wrote: | > quietly talk to the authorities first. | | This is risky because the authorities are are almost | certainly idiots. | macspoofing wrote: | >I think there is a lot more nuance than people admit. Lets | take an example of we have a deadly disease spreading through | the population (much more deadly than covid) . Let's say a | scientist finds out that the disease is primarily | (exclusively) spread by red haired people. Should they just | publish the finding? | | Yes, they should. | | >A better way is likely to quietly talk to the authorities | first. | | OK - talk to the authorities first, and then publish the | results. | | >Another example could be that there is some disease that is | entirely harmless but 100% infectious and deadly to some | group (e.g. Black people). Now should that research just be | released into the public? | | Yes, it should. | | >I admit these are somewhat hypothetical scenarios, but you | said the truth should always come up,. I just give | counterexamples. | | You didn't give counter-examples. You gave examples of times | where the information should be shared with the public and | then asserted that it shouldn't for .. I don't know what | reason. | | Here's a pragmatic reason for sharing truthful information | with the public: If you want the population to trust public | health officials, public health officials need to trust the | public with the truth. | hemloc_io wrote: | ding ding ding | | I don't think a lot of scientists and health officials | realize that their work is two sided. ESP if you're working | with public health the other side is who you view as the | unwashed masses. You don't get to make commandments | | Maintaining trust with the public is the most important | thing to do, and the best way to do that is transparency. | | All the games about if we "should tell people xyz" needs to | end if these institutions want to rebuild their credibility | with the broader public. | | The cdc is at least being retrospective but it seems like | nature has gone the opposite way and are institutionally | entrenching this idea that the public can't be trusted with | the truth. | kansface wrote: | Ah, we've already tried this! Check out the early history of | HIV in SF - scientists/doctors/politicians knew how it was | spread and refused to do or say anything lest they further | stigmatize the gay community, which was disastrous to the | actual gay community. | SamoyedFurFluff wrote: | This is incorrect. Politicians and doctors refused to do | very much about it because gay lives weren't considered | worth saving. Before the viral factor was discovered it was | believed it was literally divine punishment to kill gays. | [deleted] | nitwit005 wrote: | > A better way is likely to quietly talk to the authorities | first. | | Who will then have to create a public health campaign | targeted at, for example, gay men, and everyone will learn of | the research anyways. | | Besides which, most countries are led by people who | constantly leak secrets. It would get out long before any | action could be taken. | throwawayacc2 wrote: | Science brings facts. | | Politics deals with how we use those facts. | | If the fact brought about by science leads one group of | people to kill another, we are faced with a political | decision. Do we allow this or do we stand against it. | | We need the separation of science and politics. Otherwise, | important facts will be politically suppressed and falsehoods | will be presented as truth for political gain. | | It's a story as old as the world, I don't understand why so | many people still want to mix those two. | ryandrake wrote: | Finally, a charitable reading! | | The article draws the comparison with the ethics of doing | science on human subjects. We mostly agree in principle, that | some science simply shouldn't be done if it harms human test | subjects[1], _even if_ it would produce important scientific | output. We 're willing to make that trade-off because the | cost outweighs the potential results. The article simply | extends this principle to harms done to humans that are not | test subjects. | | 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentat | io... | contravariant wrote: | Those are terrible examples. In both cases you're advocating | to keep vital information about how a disease works and | spreads hidden in order to protect the social standing of an | ethnic group _while that very group is most at risk_. | | Heck this isn't even an hypothetical scenario, you'd suggest | we should have kept secret the ways in which monkeypox | spreads? | wizofaus wrote: | Those sorts of hypothetical "facts" don't just happen though. | At best there might be some research indicating a very high | correlation between hair colour and level of infectiousness. | But just as often as not it turns out not to be the | straightforward connection an initial finding might suggest. | So there's no reason to withhold publishing of the results of | such research, but every reason to ensure that new research | is presented in a way that makes it clear that they're new | preliminary findings that are likely to be overturned as more | research is done and better understanding is achieved. If | that still sets the mobs loose then your only option is | government intervention to protect the victims. Suppressing | knowledge about the real world is not a feasible long (or | even medium) term strategy anyway - it's there to be | discovered by anyone and everyone. | DeWilde wrote: | As someone who believes in Darwinism I think this is good as it | will only accelerate shifting any meaningful research into the | labs of private multi-billion companies. | | Will this be good for us, the public? Probably not but only the | capable survive, and the current academia is not capable of | survival. | Dig1t wrote: | I'm pro trans rights, pro LGBTQ, and also very much value free | speech. | | There is a trend on the political left right now that basically | equates speech directly with violence (e.g. asking whether a man | is capable of getting pregnant is violence) | | >Academic content that undermines the dignity or rights of | specific groups | | >We commit to using this guidance cautiously and judiciously, | consulting with ethics experts and advocacy groups where needed. | | It seems very likely to me that this policy is going to give | advocacy groups and crusaders the ability to start censoring | scientific publications that disagree with what they are saying. | scelerat wrote: | > There is a trend on the political left right now that | basically equates speech directly with violence (e.g. asking | whether a man is capable of getting pregnant is violence) | | I must admit I have not seen an argument like this outside of a | strawman characterization. | Dig1t wrote: | https://youtu.be/uU7nzwbJ-Hk?t=41 | | Here is a good example: | | > "I want to recognize that your line of questioning is | transphobic and opens trans people up to violence" | | This is a US senator and a Berkeley law professor talking in | court. | thisiscorrect wrote: | In fact, there were even claims during the 2020 riots that | "White silence is violence." See e.g. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSVUrvnJFXs. That's right, | even _not_ saying anything at all (including not parroting | the expected slogans) is a direct act of violence. | Broken_Hippo wrote: | 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 are | getting beaten and things like that, you are partially | responsible. | | I'm pretty sure the same thing happens with other things | too: You knew someone was taking money from the company yet | did nothing, you are at risk of getting in trouble too. It | isn't a concept that exist in only one arena. | systemvoltage wrote: | shredprez wrote: | I see it more as an acknowledgement that, in the midst of a | propaganda war (which the entire world is now engaged in 24/7, | thanks to the internet), the information you put out into the | world may have strategic value to individuals or groups whose | goals are contrary to the good of the human race. When true | things are used to justify horrific actions, it's particularly | difficult to prevent because that truth lends serious | credibility to the supposed rationality of the horrors being | enacted. Superficially-rational evil is the most destructive | force in the world specifically because it's built on a | foundation of carefully-selected truths. | | That doesn't mean the truth should die or we should hide from | true things. But it's impossible to avoid the amoral power of | true things, and pretending "just telling the truth" won't or | can't lead to horrific outcomes is a level of naivete | intelligent people can't afford to have in an era when | political and civil violence is back in the Overton window | throughout the world. | croes wrote: | Everything can be used to harm someone. Every knowledge can be | taken out of context to bolster someones agenda. | | So stop publishing anything because you can't prevent harming | others inadvertently. | JamesBarney wrote: | This would not only destroys woke research but pro-woke as well | because if you are guaranteeing publication bias you can't trust | the research either way. | | This is also a boon to racists who never have to defend | themselves against science again. | | "Yeah that study shows that Hispanic immigrants don't commit more | crimes, but it's against the rules to publish anything else" | i_love_limes wrote: | This has garnered quite a lot of reactions from the comments. I'd | like to ask a genuine question about this, from the perspective | of assuming that Nature is acting in good faith about this. | | Let's say someone has calculated the polygenic scores (PGS) of | Heteronormativity, meaning that a model, can predict with a | decent level of accuracy that someone will or will not be | straight from their DNA. | | This, in an ideal world, would be good knowledge to have. You can | raise you child knowing and accepting this reality. | | In the world we live in, this would be used to abort babies that | don't pass the PGS to the vast majority of people who have this | information. | | So, in this case, where we have an oppressed group that can be | oppressed further, is knowledge better than ignorance? It seems | that many in the comments would say yes, and that the pursuit of | knowledge is the clear winner, and anything else is merely the | price of progress. Which I might ask, you would say the same | thing if you were gay? | | I want to make one thing clear, this is not a silly thought | experiment. This is very possible right now with the advent of | biobanks, GWAS tooling, and machine learning. Nature is thinking | about these things when writing that up. | | I presume that most of you would agree that releasing this | information for anyone to know would have negative consequences, | and should maybe be controlled. So, then, you fundamentally agree | with Nature's stance, do you not? We're merely talking about | where the line of publishing exists, not if one should exist at | all? Are you not being a bit overzealous with your declarations | of orthodoxy? | n4r9 wrote: | That's a great example, much better than the one I thought of. | | The line has to be somewhere, right? Even if someone dismisses | your example, you can make it more and more extreme to the | point of "if this knowledge becomes public, a maniac will 99% | likely destroy the rest of the earth". | intimidated wrote: | Which is more likely: | | 1. These censorship policies will be used to save the world | from 99% certain destruction at the hands of a maniac. | | 2. These censorship policies will be used to crush evidence | that [GROUP X] is overrepresented in [FAVORABLE SITUATION Y] | due to [FAVORABLE TRAIT Z], thus legitimizing policies | unjustly punishing [GROUP X]. | | Even if you think this censorship is righteous and good, how | will you deal with folks no longer trusting the scientific | basis of what you claim? Why should anyone believe there is | no genetic difference between [GROUPS D and E] when you're | confessing that you'd never admit it? | UIUC_06 wrote: | > from the perspective of assuming that Nature is acting in | good faith about this | | Wrong. Unless you consider "good faith" saying what they really | mean, in which case, yes, it IS good faith. | | > I presume that most of you would agree that releasing this | information for anyone to know would have negative | consequences, and should maybe be controlled | | No, most of HN's readers would _not_ agree with that. A good | many of us, maybe even most, would agree with the Bible, John | 8:31-32: | | _And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you | free._ | gadders wrote: | It's an interesting thought experiment. However, a lot of | scientific discoveries have the possibility of being used for | good or ill. Why single out this one? | | Scanning of foetuses allows you to spot any issues to help keep | the developing baby healthy, but is also used to abort female | foetuses in some places. | | Or what about nuclear physics - you get a decent energy source | (subject to green objections) but also nuclear bombs. | | I think until a scientific discovery is widely known, you never | know what uses for good or ill it would be put to. Supposing | the technology you outline above plus gene editing cured heart | disease or cancer? | tckerr wrote: | TheFreim wrote: | In this scenario the "oppressed" group could only be "oppressed | further" if you assume the position that abortion is killing a | person, otherwise you wouldn't be able to call it a further | oppression since nobody came into existence to be oppressed. I | don't see how, if you assume the common pro-choice paradigm | which usually coincides with the views you express, this could | be considered wrong. | i_love_limes wrote: | Is this a real opinion? My god. | | Thinking that aborting female embryos because they will be | considered less important in society is wrong, AND think that | removing a women's right to choose entirely based on | religious teachings is wrong, AND thinking that forced | sterilization of a whole cultural/ethnic group is wrong, are | not incompatible. | | Where are you getting these opinions from? I'd honestly have | a hard look at where you got these thoughts from, they are | pretty backwards, and not morally considered at all. | ISO-morphism wrote: | I appreciate the question you posed in your original post. | | I'd challenge you to engage with GP rather than deriding | them. Your comment comes off as a selfish display of moral | superiority that shuts down discussion and serves to | further polarize. GP pointed out a perceived logical | inconsistency in moral reasoning, by definition this is | morally considered. I don't think they're acting in bad | faith, and while a more inquisitive tone on their part may | have avoided heated responses, I don't think GP's line of | thought is beyond the pale. I hope we can try to follow | where those opinions come from rather than talking past | each other. | | > Thinking that aborting female embryos because they will | be considered less important in society is wrong, AND think | that removing a women's right to choose entirely based on | religious teachings is wrong, AND thinking that forced | sterilization of a whole cultural/ethnic group is wrong, | are not incompatible. | | You assert this as if it is inherently true, which isn't | going to do anything against a logical challenge. There is | a widely-held line of reasoning that your first two | statements contradict. | | In the pro-choice position that women have a positive right | to abortion, many people in attempting to understand that | position interpret the moral grounds for it to be that the | fetus is not a person - it does not have a right to life, | therefore terminating its life is moral. That | interpretation of the moral justification doesn't come from | nowhere, I've heard it in person from people arguing in | good faith. Your original post suggests that disseminating | information that could cause more women to elect for | abortion is morally wrong because it harms marginalized | groups. This undermines the moral grounds for abortion as | the individual negative right to life is widely held to be | the most basic of rights, to be universal to persons, and | so if the fetus is to be considered a member of a | marginalized group, working backwards it must necessarily | be a person and necessarily have the right to life. | Therefore it is illogical considering only these three | factors to hold all simultaneously: (i) a fetus does not | have a negative right to life, (ii) a woman has a positive | right to abortion, (iii) a fetus can be a member of a | marginalized group of persons, as (iii) contradicts (i), | leaving (ii) unjustified. | | That line of reasoning is consistent. It flows forwards | from individuality, that group rights are derived from | individual rights, the personal right to life, and that | personhood is a necessary condition for membership in a | group of persons. It hinges on the assumption that the | moral justification for abortion is that a fetus is not a | person, and does not have a right to life. | | One legitimate rebuttal to GPs probe, and defense for your | 3 assertions, is that there is an alternative moral | justification for the pro choice position. It's not that a | fetus does not have a right to life, but that a woman's | rights to bodily autonomy and self-determination, or some | other factors, supersede the fetus' right to life. There | are more, but "your thoughts are backwards" isn't one of | them. That's exactly the imposition of dogma that other | commenters are fretting over. | | I'd be curious to hear your opinion on the recent case of a | pregnant woman in Texas pulled over in the HOV lane who | argued that due to the state's legislation limiting | abortion, the fetus inside her should qualify as a person | and so she is justified in driving there. | | EDIT: typo | goethes_kind wrote: | I never understood this perspective, that aborting fetuses | whose prospects are guaranteed to be worse, is somehow wrong or | even oppression, and somehow oppression of a whole group of | other people completely unrelated to the family. If me and my | wife are planning a baby, that's between us. There is no | outside group that has a say or is somehow being oppressed when | we decide that we do not want a child who is going to suffer | more than necessary due to being dealt the wrong cards. | | >I presume that most of you would agree that releasing this | information for anyone to know would have negative | consequences, and should maybe be controlled. | | No. What? Are you insane? If you knew that a couple were going | to have a baby with whatever problems, and you did not inform | them of this because in your mind, their decision might then | somehow upset some other group of people who are neither the | mother, nor the father, nor even the close family, then I would | find that morally unacceptable. | | EDIT: Although I disagree with your choice of example, I would | also like to say, that I do think that there ethics is | important in any profession, including in scientific research | and publication. | | EDIT 2: I think your reasoning and people who think like you | comes from this (very American notion) of thinking that being | homosexual or being deaf or being mute somehow makes you part | of a "community". And then from this comes this idea of | oppression when the community is deprived of one of their new | prospective members. I find this whole thinking absurd. | abdullahkhalids wrote: | There is one very common case where people abort fetuses | because of reasons that are not "saving the child from worse | prospects". This is people not wanting girls because "girls | are economic and social liabilities and boys are assets". In | my country, sex-selective abortion has been so prevalent that | doctors now don't tell parents the sex of the fetus. If they | did, very quickly would there be a difference of millions | between males and females in the population with all the | social problems that brings about. | | If somehow tomorrow, some research project resulted in a very | cheap device, usable by anyone, that could tell the sex of a | baby, I think one would have to at least seriously debate and | ponder whether publishing such work is good for the country | or not. | throwawayacc2 wrote: | > I think your reasoning and people who think like you comes | from this (very American notion) of thinking that being | homosexual or being deaf or being mute somehow makes you part | of a "community". And then from this comes this idea of | oppression when the community is deprived of one of their new | prospective members. I find this whole thinking absurd. | | Thank you for putting this into words. I share the same | perspective but never articulated it so elegantly. You made | my evening. | zajio1am wrote: | > In the world we live in, this would be used to abort babies | that don't pass the PGS to the vast majority of people who have | this information. | | Does it matter? Neither fetuses nor abstract population groups | are moral agents, only individual people are. Therefore, | selective abortion of any kind (that does not cause potential | offspring to be worse of) is morally neutral act. | macspoofing wrote: | >In the world we live in, this would be used to abort babies | that don't pass the PGS to the vast majority of people who have | this information. | | Are you sure about that? We have a pretty good way of | predicting the sex of the fetus and somehow our misogynistic | and sexist society doesn't have a mass problem of aborting | females. | | >So, in this case, where we have an oppressed group that can be | oppressed further, is knowledge better than ignorance? | | Abortion is oppression? | | Today, in most regions, you can abort a fetus for any reason | ... even terrible reasons. Are you advocating for abortion | controls so that abortion is only done for the 'right' reasons? | | >I want to make one thing clear, this is not a silly thought | experiment. This is very possible right now with the advent of | biobanks, GWAS tooling, and machine learning. | | If it is possible today, where are those mass abortions? | | >I presume that most of you would agree that releasing this | information for anyone to know would have negative | consequences, and should maybe be controlled. | | You assume you can hide this information. Why do you assume | that? | | And no, I don't agree that it should be controlled. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | > We have a pretty good way of predicting the sex of the | fetus and somehow our misogynistic and sexist society doesn't | have a mass problem of aborting females. | | But we do... | | > The natural sex ratio at birth is approximately 103 to 106 | males for 100 females.[37][38] However, because of sex- | selective abortions, the sex ratio at birth in countries with | high proportions of missing women have ranged 108.5 in India | to 121.2 in Mainland China.[6][18] As a result, counts of | missing women are often due to missing female children.[18] | It is estimated that the cumulative number of missing female | births due to sex-selective abortion globally is 45 million | from 1970 to 2017.[38] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_women | timmg wrote: | > In the world we live in, this would be used to abort babies | that don't pass the PGS to the vast majority of people who have | this information. | | _If_ you think that aborting babies, in general, is not | immoral, then _I, personally,_ don 't see this as a problem. | | Let's try a different thought experiment: | | If you were doing IVF because you wanted _one_ child. And you | had two embryos. So you knew you would discard one. And you | found out one of the embryos was going to be born blind. Which | would you discard? | | Most people (I think) would discard the to-be-blind one. You | could argue that that is ableist. But another way to think of | it is: you had a choice to decide if your child can see. You | chose to give them sight. | temptemptemp111 wrote: | nubero wrote: | Enrico Fermi comes to mind: "Whatever Nature has in store for | mankind, unpleasant as it may be, men must accept, for ignorance | is never better than knowledge." | | I guess he wasn't talking about the magazine... | upsidesinclude wrote: | That might be the finest rebuttal on offer | AlanYx wrote: | 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." | nubero wrote: | Indeed... The rot has spread frighteningly far. | Banana699 wrote: | 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 | probably wouldn't have shared it with Stalin's USSR or | Hitler's Germany and, for that matter, Roosevelt's USA. If | you had known in 1990 that the WWW would be used to spread | propaganda and track dissidents, you would have probably | liked to delay it till more security and decentralization is | built in from the outset. This is a very well-discussed topic | in philosophy of science and technology and good sci-fi. | | 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. | | The dishonesty of the -ve IQ people behind attitudes like the | criticized is that they see danger in everything and use | moral panic to enforce views. If the actual "dangers" they | are freaking out about are legitimate, they would have been | justified to supress (non-violently) science and technology) | colpabar wrote: | yamrzou wrote: | This is so general that its either very obvious or nonsense. They | should include examples of what they consider "harmful science". | Analemma_ wrote: | That would defeat the purpose. The whole point is to have rules | vague enough that they can be selectively applied whenever | there's an angry mob on Twitter that has to be appeased, while | still saying "hey, we're just following our policy". | nathanaldensr wrote: | Right. Like many commenters on this thread, people tend to | pick apart these types of messages from these now-woke | institutions from a logical perspective, which is a huge | mistake. These are effectively _religious tenets_ ; they | aren't issues of logic but issues of faith. | deepdriver wrote: | Studies on heritable differences in intelligence are effectively | banned in the West due to the overlap with genetics of ancestral | continental populations, or what's approximately known as race. | Everyone who looks at the well-developed, consistently-replicated | body of study here knows what is known and why it is politically | unpalatable. East Asian countries do not have these self-imposed | bans on scientific truth (these truths, anyway). They will do the | research first, reap its rewards, and develop a permanent | civilizational advantage. Designer babies are an irresistible | competitive edge. | | Ironic and sad, as it's precisely this research that could | finally close today's measured gaps. | savant_penguin wrote: | "In some cases, however, potential harms to the populations | studied may outweigh the benefit of publication." | | I'm sure our demigods will gladly enlighten us with their wisdom | to distinguish between misthoughts and correct thoughts. | | So that when journalists claim to be following the science there | will be no dissenting voice in research to disagree. | | Those who defend opposing ideas will have no leg to stand on and | will rightfully be labeled science deniers | bergenty wrote: | At a very simple level, it's akin to not yelling bomb in a | theatre since it would be faster and more efficient for | everyone to evacuate in an orderly manner without being | informed of the bomb. I feel like our society does require some | gatekeepers and can't be run well if it's just vocal | collectives yelling at each other. | throwawayacc2 wrote: | > I feel like our society does require some gatekeepers | | Which should be people who broadly speaking share your | political and ethical beliefs, yes? | | And, if the gatekeepers are people with a different sense of | morality, it is fascism and must be torn down in the name of | freedom, correct? | bergenty wrote: | There is something to building around a consensus on who | they are roughly around the phrase "first cause no harm" | throwawayacc2 wrote: | What is harm? | freejazz wrote: | macspoofing wrote: | >I feel like our society does require some gatekeepers and | can't be run well if it's just vocal collectives yelling at | each other. | | I'm glad you recognize in yourself that you can't be trusted | with certain information and you need, personally, a big | brother to lie to you. You do you. I'd appreciate if you | didn't make the same assessment about me, and others. | mellosouls wrote: | TL;DR: | | Principle 1: | | _Researchers should be free to pursue lines of inquiry and the | communication of knowledge and ideas without fear of repression | or censorship._ | | All following principles: | | _Eh, on second thoughts, maybe not so much..._ | tlb wrote: | Well, I respect them for formally stating as policy what was | presumably being done informally for a long time. | | It gives their audience something specific to disagree with, | rather than a vague feeling that some kinds of research were | being buried. | wikitopian wrote: | The astrophysical sciences make me feel vulnerable, | insignificant, insecure, and irrelevant relative to the vast | expanse of the universe. | | I demand an end to this harm. | 62951413 wrote: | Telescopes evoke phallic associations and so promote the male | dominance. The world demands female-friendly optics. | #defundastronomy #cancelgalileo | oaiey wrote: | Things like this will not foster review/magazine based | publications. | | Well they are on their way down, this will just speed that up. | throwawayacc2 wrote: | From the article: | | Researchers are asked to carefully consider the potential | implications (including inadvertent consequences) of research on | human groups defined by attributes of race, ethnicity, national | or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, | religion, political or other beliefs, age, disease, (dis)ability | or other status | | --- | | Say there's an article coming out clearly disproving racial | differences. Will the researchers be "carefully considering the | potential implications" of this finding on people with national- | socialist persuasions? | | It is after a finding negativity affecting a group of people | defined by, and I quote "political or other belief". | | Or is it only the correct political beliefs that one must be | "carefully considering the potential implications" of? | | If that's the case, can I please know who decides the correct | political beliefs? | tpoacher wrote: | > but may be harmed by its publication. | | I can't think of a _single_ piece of research for which this | wouldn 't apply. | upsidesinclude wrote: | It entirely unsurprising that an author cannot be found attached | to this excrement | dcow wrote: | Most of this seems wildly unenforceable at a practical level. And | yes that's all really bad and non-secular and society will be | harmed because people, even with the best intentions, will try to | filter facts. The two terminology clarifications they make I | don't mind though: sex vs gender and race vs biological lineage. | I think society would be better off with very clear and precise | usage of those terms. | | I mentally flip a table every time I hear someone colloquially | say "sex is a social construct" (they mean gender) or get | hesitant about describing the sex of their gestating baby because | they want to leave it ambiguous or on the flip side want to have | a "gender reveal" party. People care about the sex of your baby, | not their gender. And it's totally fair to study the effects of | biological lineage on modern humans instead of treating all | humans as the same biological profile or reducing the question to | _tribally_ relevant characteristics like skin color (race _is_ a | social construct, but biological lineage is not). | | Consequently this is why the zeitgeist is so weird. Everything is | about e.g. _racial identity_ but race is a social construct that | by definition you can 't apply based on biological attributes | (just like gender) so... ... ??? ... | nathanaldensr wrote: | As you've identified, they've tied themselves into knots with | inconsistencies and hypocritical positions. There is no logic | to be found here, only insanity masquerading as such. Luckily | for everyone else, the scientific method will remain, even if | it is temporarily suppressed. | deepdriver wrote: | Ideology can remain inconsistent longer than you can remain | fed and housed while opposing it. | macspoofing wrote: | >Most of this seems wildly unenforceable at a practical level. | | At a practical level, it's very enforceable. You just setup a a | "science-must-respect-dignity-of-all-humans" committee at every | major publication and university, and just block any violating | papers from publication, prevent grants from going to 'bad' | research and don't hire anyone who does subscribe to your | orthodoxy. | | We're well on our way to do that (if not already there). | commandlinefan wrote: | > wildly unenforceable at a practical level | | I suspect it will be enforced the way open source codes of | conduct are enforced. Very, very selectively, by very, very | suspiciously agenda-ed people. | deepdriver wrote: | It's trivially enforceable. Academic institutions have been | absolutely ideologically and politically captured. The long | march through not only the institutions, but especially the HR | departments has achieved total victory. | Banana699 wrote: | > People care about the sex of your baby, not their gender. | | For the vast majority of people outside of """"certain | groups"""", those 2 are aliases. They were created as aliases, | they were always used as aliases by the vast majority of | people, and are still used as aliases by the vast majority of | people including in formal paperwork. | | "Always 2 there are, no more, no less" | | - Yoda, Star Wars The Phantom Menace | landofredwater wrote: | I think that most of these types of guidelines and rules are | written with good intent, but intent is what ruins good science. | | Science, as a method, works when you have a hypothesis, but when | that hypothesis isn't supported by your findings you can't just | discard the findings and go "well I'm still pretty sure I was | right anyway." | | If you find something you disagree with to be true, that makes | the science even more important to share! Other people can start | to look at what you've seen and get more details and finer | understanding. | anon291 wrote: | The only 'good' intent in science is to pursue empirical truth | based on the application of the scientific method. Every other | intent is questionable, and certainly if one is following it, | soon deviates from the realm of 'science'. | psyc wrote: | It's the same Science you know and trust, now with 50% more | social consciousness! | cf141q5325 wrote: | This whole "having good intentions" as justification for | anything scares the living crap out of me. I really believed we | for once learned from history. Even letting the non trivial | problem of defining what is "good" aside, intentions and | results are very very different things. Intentions describe | your own story for your actions. Its about how your see | yourself. That has no impact on the result in reality. Valuing | intentions instead of outcome is actual insanity. | | And it only got worse once i realized that this isnt some kind | of horrible stupid accident but people do this to deal with an | utterly horrible reality they cant cope with anymore. So they | just gave up on reality and instead focused on a story they can | tell themselves to feel good despite reality. | | edit: Just to point it out, even if both of those very obvious | fundamental problems would be addressed, what would be left | would be "the ends justify the means". Its utterly horrific | from which ever angle you look at it. | commandlinefan wrote: | You're more charitable than I am. I think these things are | written with a mindset of "how far can we push this/what can we | realistically get away with?" | trashtester wrote: | This is like the burning of the Library in Alexandria. | | Looks like we're entering a new Dark Age. | | A 1984-like Orwellian Nightmare. | redleader55 wrote: | Nature magazine existence is attacking my dignity. Now what? | | I'm taking the proverbial piss, but their statement is completely | absurd. | motohagiography wrote: | Almost charitably, how much confidence do we have that they will | abide by these same principles when research showing a | combination of intelligence and measurable personality or genetic | traits put other collective groups at risk? | | Their logic is that abstract ideas, which have been subject to | criticism by credentialed intellectuals, cannot be held above the | material interests of any human being, and especially beings who | must be made _more_ equal because of historic oppression. In this | view, logic itself is an artifact of that oppression, and it | forms a literal substrate of abuse that deprives people of having | the material symbolic things that others do. Appeals to logic or | principle cannot be given standing, because these are the literal | barriers that confined beings in the first place. To bring change | and justice, they cannot accept their enemy 's rules of being | accountable to logic, truth, principle, or anything that prevents | their absolute overthrow of these oppressive systems and places | them at the helm. | | My argument against this anonymous central committee decree here | is that it is a statement of principle by people who reject | principles as a matter of principle. Arguing the internal logic | of their points directly is to fatally underestimate the | malevolence of the people behind them. | josephcsible wrote: | Newspeak to English translation: we're no longer publishing any | papers whose results contradict our preferred worldview. | ausbah wrote: | like most here I don't particularly agree with the main premise | of the piece (objectivity taking a sideline to how something | _might_ affect a population), but I am a little saddened if not | scared at how vitriolic some of the comments are here. there are | many vulnerable populations in the world that might negatively be | impacted by publications, to label even the thought of that as a | factor in ethics as _evil_ makes me uncomfortable | mrchucklepants wrote: | "I reject your reality and I substitute my own." | waterpowder wrote: | googlryas wrote: | It would be great if the author would provide example research | which they think should not have been published under this new | ethics guidance. | hbossy wrote: | ,,If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." | carapace wrote: | I thought this would be about e.g. building telescopes on | Maunakea. | SubiculumCode wrote: | There 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. | cf141q5325 wrote: | > most from non-scientists | | I am really curious about your source on this. | PeterisP wrote: | The actual guidelines that are being proposed, namely the | following quote, _do_ sound like a veiled requirement to self- | censor (or 'contextualize') any data or findings that go | against the expected norm. | | "Researchers are asked to carefully consider the potential | implications (including inadvertent consequences) of research | on human groups defined by attributes of race, ethnicity, | national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual | orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, | disease, (dis)ability or other status, to be reflective of | their authorial perspective if not part of the group under | study, and contextualise their findings to minimize as much as | possible potential misuse or risks of harm to the studied | groups in the public sphere." | | I would argue that the "possible misuse" of some undesirable | findings explicitly should _not_ be a valid factor to consider, | since it 's even more important to publish valid findings | especially if they are controversial. As you say, we should | definitely avoid generalization of findings by relying on | stereotypes without empirical basis (because that's a false | implication), _however_ , we should also not shun findings | strongly supported by empirical basis even if they coincide | with some stereotypes - and this statement does not even try to | mention this balance. | | I would welcome the same passage to say something like "If this | research touches these sensitive topics, then we implore the | authors, reviewers and editors to be double-sure that the | assertions are actually true, but for $Deity's sake don't ever | omit any controversial but true results". | | In essence, it's a statement about priorities and values. Being | respectful is important. Being true is important. But if you | say that the former is more important than the latter and | should sometimes override it, then you don't share my values | and are not a friend of science; you should respect the dignity | and rights of all humans as long as it doesn't harm the | communication of truth and not an inch more. | systemvoltage wrote: | This is the end of objectivism and a terrifying rise of | subjectivism. Emotions, feelings, offense, sensitivities, racial | background, gender, etc are now more important than nature, | reality, rationality, logic, truth and facts. | [deleted] | MicolashKyoka wrote: | Hiding results is a good way to end up with people not trusting | what you say. Truth should be paramount for science to flourish, | even if the conclusions are not palatable. | mistrial9 wrote: | hashtag #nooneleftbehind appears to be in a similar vein.. | "sovereignty" is so pre-modern </snark> | ohCh6zos wrote: | I haven't heard of this and doing a web search didn't really | help me out. Can I read more about this somewhere? | giantg2 wrote: | "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." | | If it's good research, then it shouldn't have any of these | biases. Stigmatization and restrictions of rights is a _policy_ | issue. _Science is not policy_. I think we need to promote this | separation more. Too often I see "but the study says this | thing". Sure, that may be a scientific fact, but that doesn't | mean it's the best thing for society, or even that it provides a | complete picture of the issue. | 1970-01-01 wrote: | Nowhere in the scientific method does this message fit. | WalterBright wrote: | Science has nothing to do with the dignity and rights of all | humans. Science just a mechanism for separating truth from | nonsense. | throwawayacc2 wrote: | From the article: | | > Science has for too long been complicit in perpetuating | structural inequalities and discrimination in society. | | > Finally, authors should use inclusive, respectful, non- | stigmatizing language in their submitted manuscripts. | | > Race and ethnicity are sociopolitical constructs. | | --- | | To me, this sounds like a clergyman espousing articles of faith | and commandments. | californiadreem wrote: | "[...] Subsequent pontiffs continued to exhort the episcopate and | the whole body of the faithful to be on their guard against | heretical writings, whether old or new; and one of the functions | of the Inquisition when it was established was to exercise a | rigid censorship over books put in circulation. The majority of | the condemnations were at that time of a specially theological | character. With the discovery of the art of printing, and the | wide and cheap diffusion of all sorts of books which ensued, the | need for new precautions against heresy and immorality in | literature made itself felt, and more than one pope (Sixtus IV. | in 1479 and Alexander VI. in 1501) gave special directions to the | archbishops of Cologne, Mainz, Trier and Magdeburg regarding the | growing abuses of the printing press; in 1515 the Lateran council | formulated the decree De Impressione Librorum, which required | that no work should be printed without previous examination by | the proper ecclesiastical authority, the penalty of unlicensed | printing being excommunication of the culprit, and confiscation | and destruction of the books. The council of Trent in its fourth | session, 8th April 1546, forbade the sale or possession of any | anonymous religious book which had not previously been seen and | approved by the ordinary; in the same year the university of | Louvain, at the command of Charles V., prepared an "Index" of | pernicious and forbidden books, a second edition of which | appeared in 1550." | faxmeyourcode wrote: | Any dissent against the state religion shall not be tolerated. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | This all seems quite dull considering the other reactions here: | | > Studies that use the constructs of race and/or ethnicity should | explicitly motivate their use. Race/ethnicity should not be used | as proxies for other variables -- for example, socioeconomic | status or income. For studies involving data collected from human | participants, researchers should explain: | | * who provided the classification terms (the participants, the | researchers or third parties) | | * what the classification terms are | | * how racial/ethnic identity was determined (by the participants, | the researchers or third parties) | | > Biomedical studies should not conflate genetic ancestry (a | biological construct) and race/ethnicity (sociopolitical | constructs): although race/ethnicity are important constructs for | the study of disparities in health outcomes and health care, | empirically established genetic ancestry is the appropriate | construct for the study of the biological aetiology of diseases | or differences in treatment response. If race/ethnicity are used | in the context of disease aetiology due to the unavailability of | genetic ancestry data, this should be done with caution and | clarification. | alphabetting wrote: | I posted this to garner some discussion but wanted to be clear | it's not an endorsement. The new IRB ethics guidelines Nature is | pushing here is absurd and would be a disaster in my opinion. | effingwewt wrote: | So glad I saw this after my comment, I couldn't believe what I | was reading and am so very glad I wasn't the only one, much | less from GP. | | I appreciate you calling it out greatly, they've been circling | the drain but _wow_. | dqpb wrote: | The ethics argument is a cover story for capturing greater | power and control. | commandlinefan wrote: | And sadly, I correctly guessed what the article would be about | just from reading the title. | DrBazza wrote: | > Editors, authors and reviewers will hopefully find the | guidance helpful when considering and discussing potential | benefits and harms arising from manuscripts dealing with human | population groups categorized on the basis of socially | constructed or socially relevant characteristics, such as race, | ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, | sexual orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, | disease, (dis)ability or socioeconomic status. | | How do you effectively discuss, and communicate, that for | example sickle cell anaemia or lactose intolerance affects | people of African descent, or skin cancer is prevalent in | people of European ancestry? And that poor and badly educated | people are susceptible to bad diets, lifestyles and medical | issues that are a consequence of that? | | > harms arising from manuscripts | | I'm pretty sure the readership for papers in Nature is pretty | low, and already read by a target audience of academics that | already use a scientific dialect that doesn't cause 'offense'. | Scientific language is terse and unambiguous for a reason. | Efficient and precise transfer of ideas. "Go the shops and get | a loaf of bread. If there are eggs, get a dozen". | | "Offense" in 2022 is the social construct here. Not age, or | disease, or origin. | timr wrote: | > How do you effectively discuss, and communicate, that for | example sickle cell anaemia or lactose intolerance affects | people of African descent, or skin cancer is prevalent in | people of European ancestry? And that poor and badly educated | people are susceptible to bad diets, lifestyles and medical | issues that are a consequence of that? | | Don't worry, it says in the guidelines that race and | ethnicity aren't real: | | > Race and ethnicity are sociopolitical constructs. Humans do | not have biological races, at least based on modern | biological criteria for the identification of geographical | races or subspecies. | | This, of course, is going to be Good News to people of | African descent (where sickle cell anemia is ~20x more likely | in black newborns than white [1]), Ashkenazi Jewish people | (at higher risk for a number of different genetic illnesses | [2]), or pretty much every non-white person with lactose | intolerance [3]...just to name a few examples. | | [1] | https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/sicklecell/features/keyfinding- | tr.... | | [2] https://www.gaucherdisease.org/blog/5-common-ashkenazi- | genet... | | [3] https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/lactose- | intoleran.... | freejazz wrote: | 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... | wyager wrote: | > That there is a genetically distinct haplotype group | that corresponds to many folk that share these traits | with me, is sufficient | | This is what race means. You are taking the same referent | and giving it a different designator. | freejazz wrote: | If that's the case I'm sure you can provide a link to a | dictionary stating as much. In reality, such haplotype | groups, when they even exist, do not correlate with what | people call "race". | nradov wrote: | Everyone is of African descent, depending on how far back | you look. So it's a rather vague term, and becoming less | useful over time as previously distinct groups become more | intermixed. | | In studies of conditions like sickle cell anaemia or | lactose intolerance or skin cancer it would probably be | more useful to relate those to particular genotypes and/or | phenotypes rather than relying on which "race" field each | experimental subject selected on the intake form. | timr wrote: | I was waiting for the first person to say this, which is | why I explicitly wrote "black" when describing the | disproportionate rates of sickle cell in black children | vs. white children. This isn't some rhetorical game. We | know what "race" is, intuitively, and we _know_ that it | correlates strongly with real-world biological outcomes. | | These guidelines are gaslighting people into ignoring | broadly useful categories because we don't have a | _reductive_ way of defining them. We don 't have a | biological test that defines race (yet), ergo, it doesn't | exist. Except that's wrong. It's absurd. | | > In studies of conditions like sickle cell anaemia or | lactose intolerance or skin cancer it would probably be | more useful to relate those to particular genotypes | and/or phenotypes rather than relying on which "race" | field each experimental subject selected on the intake | form. | | If we could do that -- relate the (known) gene for sickle | cell to some other "genotype" that captures the racial | bias we _know_ exists -- we 'd have a strict biological | definition for race, wouldn't we? | | Aside from that, we know the "phenotype" that correlates | with the illness. Black people have it, at high rates. | SamoyedFurFluff wrote: | Actually, sickle cell anemia is disproportionately high | only in specific populations of black people. The black | race is more genetically diverse than all other races | combined. Race has a very poor basis in science vs | specific genetic lines correlated with specific | geographical regions of genetic drift. | freejazz wrote: | Black isn't a "race", it's a social category. You can't | actually be serious? In America, black includes people of | Caribbean descent, people from South America, African- | Americans, someone that stepped off a plane from | Ethiopia. It's a completely meaningless term in regards | to science. You can't actually be serious? | zmgsabst wrote: | Well -- no. | | Those people have a shared biological lineage, with only | a relatively short period of differentiation -- while | they have radically different cultures. | | What you're describing is "black" being useless as a | social construct (ie, I know nothing about their culture) | but useful medically/scientifically (ie, there's | groupings of medical conditions correlated with that | lineage). | | I would go so far as to say only racists use "black" as a | social construct -- and project that the medical | groupings are the same. | freejazz wrote: | What medical conditions do you know of that are specific | to every group in the (allegedly useless and racist) | social category of "Black"? | Banana699 wrote: | "Blind isn't an actual biological condition, it's a | social category" | | The same thing can be different categories. Black is | social category, and is also a very well defined | biological state of the most visible organ in your body, | and is associated with certain genes. Instead of | repeatedly stating the name of those different genes | every time you say something about them, you can simply | say the name of the most visible marker of them and still | be correct the vast majority of time. | freejazz wrote: | The notion was that a "race" is something of such | significant scientific relevance, that not being able to | use "Black" to refer to a "race" would be a disservice. | But you aren't here saying Black is a race, it is a | "defined biological state of the most visible organ in | your body". Okay, what does that have to do with race? | Did you not understand my previous post explaining that | "people who are socially considered Black" is basically a | useless scientific criteria outside of its social | circumstances? | | You seem a little bit more focused on repeating some | rhetorical dunk you read somewhere online than actually | understanding what is being discussed. Take a moment and | actually consider what I'm writing. To repeat the example | that I gave before, research on Ashkenazi Jewish diseases | is not hindered by calling it research on the specific | haplotype group that it is. The poster that brought up | Ashkenazi Jews is misunderstanding if not disingenuous. I | think you also don't get the difference between what a | haplotype group is in this context, and your concept of | "race". | nradov wrote: | If the biological state is "very well defined" then | please point us to the definition. Is it based solely on | skin hue and reflectance, or are there other factors? Do | some people in South Asia with very dark skin meet that | definition or are they excluded? | | I'm not just trying to be argumentative here. If | scientists want to produce high quality, reproducible | research then they must precisely define their terms. | They can't just assume that everyone has the same | understanding and knows what they mean. | nradov wrote: | Are you taking about scientific research (as per the | original article) or healthcare delivery? Medical | researchers should take the take the time to be precise | about characterizing their subjects, and rely on subject- | reported demographic data as little as possible. | Practitioners and public health have to take a more | pragmatic approach, and rely on generalizations for the | sake of convenience. Those are different use cases with | different best practices. | hattmall wrote: | Goodbye Science, you brought us a long way. | dqpb wrote: | > Science must respect | | Science is abstract | crawfordcomeaux wrote: | h2odragon wrote: | Summary: Orthodoxy above all. If your Facts run over the Dogma we | won't publish it. | drorco wrote: | Can anyone actually think of an actual discovery that harmed | people? | | I'm missing some actual examples of what they're trying to | protect people from. | nathanaldensr wrote: | Even if there are examples, they will be _political_ examples | and not scientific ones. Of course, they 'd conveniently | conflate the two to mislead the less observant among us. | causality0 wrote: | _the guidance helps in considering whether it is ethically | appropriate to question a social group's right to freedom or | cultural rights_ | | Somebody want to explain to me what the heck "cultural rights" | are and how publishing data could interfere with them? | systemvoltage wrote: | There is nothing to debate here and to understand. Wheels have | fallen off. They've shown the cards. We're seeing a rise of | 1984 style authoritarianism in academia + corporate culture. | What cannot be legislated must be forced through proxies of | corporations and scientific journals. | | The only north star we as humans have is what nature is and to | understand it. Nature is immutable and does not care about our | interpretation of it. Rejection of cold truth is a surefire way | for society to regress into chaos and decay. | throwaway787544 wrote: | What about the harm done by allowing publication from a group of | humans killing other humans? Russian research institutions were | given carte blanche while the state murdered innocent Ukrainians | (and still does). Yet all the high and mighty science | institutions keep insisting we should keep supporting Russian | research. The ethical thing to do would be to use the influence | of the scientific community to hinder, impede, and block any | group that so horrifyingly and blatantly violates human rights. | But apparently we're all okay with oppression as long as we're | not the ones being oppressed. | | Ethics make us sound noble, but nobody will stand up to China, or | the USA, or Russia. We all care about getting ours much more than | we care about protecting people. The hypocrisy is so obvious | nobody mentions it, like a turd on the sidewalk. Step over it and | move on. | bigcat12345678 wrote: | > Nobody will stand up to China, or the USA, or Russia. | | If you rank how many people were killed in the past 20 years, | US is 100X of China and Russia summed up together... | buscoquadnary wrote: | I am glad that Nature has taken this stand. I've seen so many bad | people try and use "science" to do things I disagree with, even | when The Science has been settled from things like Jewish Space | lazers to people hesitant to wear a mask that killed grandma. | | I am grateful that Nature has decided to become the arbiters of | what "The Science" is, do you know how many people blithely like | to talk about science, and "scientific experiments" they have run | on their own? They don't even have lab coats or a degree and then | pretend they can speak for "The Science". Why it's absurd as a | Swiss Patent Clerk claiming to overturn hundreds of years of | accepted "settled Science" because he published some paper. | | What happens if we let anyone practice "The Science" some people | might do so erroneously and then use that to convince other | people of things that aren't right. What would happen to our | beloved institutions if just anyone could overturn scientific | discoveries without having been inducted into the proper | priesthood of the PhD? | | I think this is a wonderful thing, now we will ensure that only | good people that really understand The Science can tell other | people what The Science says, and they will remain true pure and | uncurroptable and if anyone disagrees with them, well they are | obviously dangerous deluded individuals that argue with reality | itself after all The Science has decreed what reality is. We | should force those people to be re-educated until they understand | The Science. For efficiency purposes though maybe we could put | them in camps of some sort, where they could be concentrated. | Hmmm.... | throwawayacc2 wrote: | Praise be to The Science! | edmcnulty101 wrote: | The smart people on Television and the Internet tell me what | the correct science is and people who don't agree with the | science, need to go to re-education camps to learn the correct | science. I even hashtag to support the science, that's how much | I trust it. #believeInScience | bigcat12345678 wrote: | I am getting dumb-funded by the obvious senseless thinking in the | title: | | Science is about the mechanisms of natural worlds. It's the | foundation of human civilization. It's the basis of human | thoughts and the ideology etc. | | To say Science must respect dignity and rights of all humans, | it's like to say nature must respect the dignity and rights of | all humans. But Science is the rendition of natural world's | mechanisms, they do not have personality and emotions. They | cannot respect anything! | | It's reasonable to say "scientists must respect the dignity and | rights of all humans". It's senseless to say Science must respect | the dignity and rights of all humans. | georgex7 wrote: | wtf is going on | chinabot wrote: | jpeloquin wrote: | I'm having difficulty reconciling these two opinions: | | 1. This ethics guidance is bad because it limits, or even | censors, scientific investigation related to socially sensitive | topics. | | 2. Social science has a reproducibility crisis and is mostly | useless (a viewpoint commonly expressed in response to other | articles). | | Does anyone hold both of these opinions, or is it just different | people talking at different times? | Natsu wrote: | If you're using outrage to select science for what's pleasing | to hear instead of what's true, you can use 1 as an explanation | for 2. And 1 isn't exactly new. | jpeloquin wrote: | Ah, so the social science reproducibility problems are | hypothesized to be caused by bias (or, less provocatively, | filtering), moreso than e.g. bad experimental design. Yes, | that would nicely reconcile both perspectives. | Natsu wrote: | There's plenty of room for both. If you have lots of bad | experiments and filter the ones you agree with, the | combination is even worse because there's an apparent | consensus. | dqpb wrote: | These are orthogonal issues. | jpeloquin wrote: | Are they really? If social science is unreliable, then it is | reasonable to conclude that (a) limiting its scope of | investigation doesn't matter or even (b) limiting its scope | of investigation is actually good, so that it at least does | less harm. In what perspective are the issues fully | orthogonal? | kingkawn wrote: | hilarious the many comments here equating their own disinterest | in the lives of others with scientific objectivity | giraffe_lady wrote: | look man these paperclips aren't going to maximize themselves. | photochemsyn wrote: | As usual, the academic sociopoliticals don't want to delve into | issues of wealth and poverty. Notably this has been a real issue | in pharmaceutical drug safety trials, which have tended to | exploit poor populations in industrialized countries as well as, | more recently, the impoverished populations in developing | nations. There's no mention of this whatsoever, instead it's | about this: | | _" We also developed two specific sections -- on race, ethnicity | and racism; and on sex, gender identity/presentation and | orientation -- that clarify issues with these constructs and | explain that racism and discrimination on the basis of gender | identity or sexual orientation should have no place in science."_ | | The trend towards moving clinical trials to developing nations | was first commented on over a decade ago and is in full swing | today, but it doesn't even get a mention. For example: | | "Ethical and Scientific Implications of the Globalization of | Clinical Research", Glickman et al. (2009)" | | http://archive.sph.harvard.edu/schering-plough-workshop/file... | | > "This phenomenon raises important questions about the economics | and ethics of clinical research and the translation of trial | results to clinical practice: Who benefits from the globalization | of clinical trials? What is the potential for exploitation of | research subjects?" | | That's an explicit fundamentally important ethical issue, but | raising it might imperil academic funding from pharmaceutical | corporations, so they stick to their safe topics. It's really | kind of pathetic. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | 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. | tarakat wrote: | _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, potential harms to the | populations studied may outweigh the benefit of publication._ | | "The teachings of the Church must not be undermined by | heliocentrism or evolution research, so findings in those areas | will be strictly filtered for heresy before publication. | | But those findings that _support_ the Church will be permitted, | and loudly trumpeted as scientific proof of our dogma. " | silicon2401 wrote: | Beautifully put. What I loved about science growing up is that | it valued truth and knowledge (or such was the impression I had | of science in history). If someone argues for self-censoring | truth/knowledge to avoid XYZ values today, they would've been | the same people to argue self-censoring the truth about | heliocentrism yesterday. It's a tragedy to see science fall | prey to dogmatism and I hope we can see some kind of new field | emerge that has the courage to pursue truth first and worry | about implications second. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | > "The teachings of the Church must not be undermined by | heliocentrism or evolution research, so findings in those areas | will be strictly filtered for heresy before publication." | | This is actually a bit of a historical myth that due to anti- | religious bias prevails widely. | | Contrary to widespread belief, the works of Charles Darwin were | never on the Catholic Church's Index of Forbidden Books, nor | did the Catholic Church ever state that Evolution as a theory | could not be believed, but rather emphasized that a few | specific theological events (a garden in which man fell) must | remain, though the lead-up to those events was not rigidly | defined. This is also why a Catholic priest is responsible for | the Big Bang theory. | | As for heliocentrism, this is also baloney as it was initially | proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus, who was not censored for his | beliefs[1], and also served as a Catholic canon (religious | member but not necessarily a priest). This idea was backed by | Galileo using astronomy, however, Galileo was tried for | writings other than his heliocentrism that were arguably | heretical (including attacks on the Pope within his work) and | not necessarily for the heliocentric view itself, as seen by | the Church making Copernicus mandatory reading in some | universities for astronomy courses. | | [1] The Roman Inquisition would later censor it for a short | time, however, their main requirement was that it definitions | be changed from fact to theory, and the Roman Inquisition | actually used 13 mathematical arguments of their own from the | astronomer Tycho Brahe, versus only 4 theological ones. The | Spanish Inquisition never censored the book. Even though Brahe | was later proven incorrect in his arguments, he was still one | of the most accurate astronomers of the era, and Johannes | Kepler (of the Kepler Space Telescope fame) would later use his | measurements to create the 3 planetary laws of motion. In any | event, it would appear that this censorship of Copernicus | requiring revisions before publications was due to Copernicus' | overconfidence in potentially erroneous mathematics, rather | than a theological dispute. | phaistra wrote: | Can you provide some books or links if so that I can read up | on these misconceptions? | gjsman-1000 wrote: | Try here for a purely academic overview (no religious | Catholic websites or other "biased" commentators for this), | that was also very recent. There are plenty of other | sources, but this was just what I found first that was | academic in scope. | | https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-30833-9 | _... | | I would also recommend reading about Nicolas Copernicus | (geocentrism before Galileo), as well as Georges Lemaitre | (Catholic Priest who had idea for Big Bang), and Gregor | Mendel (before Evolution, experiments with Genetics). | | Example: "In Spain, new cosmological discoveries and ideas | were discussed at both the universities and at the Casa and | Consejo. For example, Jeronimo Munoz (ca. 1520-1591), who | taught astronomy and mathematics at the universities of | Valencia and Salamanca, was one of the many European | scientists to observe and write about the supernova of | 1572. For Munoz, the supernova challenged the Aristotelian | notion that change was impossible in the celestial realm. | In some of his unpublished work and letters to other | European astronomers like Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), he | espoused an understanding of the relationship between the | celestial and terrestrial realms drawn from Stoic | philosophers. He denied the existence of celestial orbs and | instead asserted that the planets moved through the heavens | like birds through the air or fish through the water. He | also discussed Nicolaus Copernicus' (1473-1543) | heliocentric system with his students, although he did not | endorse it (Navarro-Brotons 1995, 57). In fact, as Victor | Navarro-Brotons has shown, "the work of Copernicus | circulated freely in sixteenth-century Spain, where its | technical and empirical aspects were greatly admired and | used" (Navarro-Brotons 1995, 63). In 1561, the statutes of | the University of Salamanca specified that in the second | year of the astronomy course the professor must teach | either "the Almagest of Ptolemy, or its Epitome by | Regiomontanus, or Geber, or Copernicus," and that the | students could vote on which text they wanted (Navarro- | Brotons 1995, 55). In 1594, these statutes were amended and | the teaching of Copernicus was made mandatory, no longer | subject to the vote of the students (Navarro-Brotons 1995, | 59). The 1594, statutes were reproduced with no change in | 1625, despite the prohibition of Copernicus' work by the | Roman Inquisition in 1616 (Navarro-Brotons 1995, 60). In | fact, De revolutionibus was "never placed on any Spanish | Inquisitorial index" (Navarro-Brotons 1995, 63), which does | not mean Spanish astronomers were free to adopt | heliocentrism but does indicate that it was possible to | teach and discuss Copernicus in Spanish universities. As | Navarro-Brotons notes, only one Spanish scholar, Diego de | Zuniga (1536-1597), is known to have actually endorsed the | Copernican system. Others used the Prutenic tables, which | were calculated using Copernicus' mathematical models, and | other parameters drawn from De revolutionibus, in much the | same way that Copernicus was taught at the University of | Wittenberg (Navarro-Brotons 1995, 59; Westman 1975). | Finally, interest in Copernicus spread outside | universities, because the Prutenic tables and other | technical aspects of Copernicus' work had applications in | navigation. For example, Juan Cedillo Diaz (ca. 1560-1625), | who studied at Salamanca and became chief cosmographer at | the Consejo de Indias and professor at the Mathematical | Academy in Seville in 1611, made a free Spanish translation | of the first three books of Copernicus' De revolutionibus | sometime between 1620 and 1625 (Granada and Crespo 2019; | Navarro-Brotons 1995, 63; Esteban Pineiro and Gomez Crespo | 1991)." | mistrial9 wrote: | without handy references, I believe that part of the | significance of Church dogma on stars and celestial | mechanics, was that astronomy was widely practiced by many | civilizations to varying rigorous results, but that science | and most all abstract learning was also connected to | religious or mythological meanings. Different societies, in | particular the overall Muslim world of today, viewed the | movements of the stars and planets with different meanings, | which sometimes were taken very seriously. This connects to | the imagery of the three wise men at christian nativity, who | follow a star but give their gifts to the newborn. | | Social prestige associated with higher learning was a subject | of rivalry and competition, as most things were in those | places at that time it seems. | al_mandi wrote: | I'm a person of faith. At the same time, we point out that the | religion of "scientism" exists whether people admit it or not, | especially when they claim that they "believe in science". | Correct faith and science are not contradictory. And those | people mix up belief in the unseen with blind faith without | proof or evidence. | altruios wrote: | Tell me how your believe is better than someone else's 'blind | faith'? | | Science is falsifiable - anything pushed forward by science | has a way to be disproved built in (other wise it is not | science). That's important because then you can update your | worldview based on new evidence. | | For the same to be true of religion - it must be falsifiable: | it MUST have a way to disprove itself via experimentation... | oh wait... the (Christian version) does... | | Go do this test: "Kings 18:20-40": When you've soaked your | bull in water and it doesn't magical catch fire by praying... | I'll be waiting. (Or I'll be waiting video proof of the | Christian god - that should be repeatable by many people... | right?) | | MAKE THE BULL CATCH FIRE WITH YOUR PRAYERS OR GTFO WITH YOUR | NONSENSE | dane-pgp wrote: | Just because that prayer lead to a miracle in the past, | doesn't mean you can demand that God grants the same | miracle again in different circumstances. That's trying to | treat God as something like an appliance rather than an | agent, and even an appliance would have instructions for | when it would work. | | If I may reverse the burden of proof, and be equally | unreasonable, let me say that if you think that there is no | afterlife, then you should go kill yourself. You're going | to die at some point anyway, and this way you'll get your | answer right away. It's a 100% falsifiable position, but | unfortunately very few people who have done the necessary | experiment have been able to communicate their findings to | the scientific community afterwards. | teawrecks wrote: | I think your view on this is being influenced by the | limitations of the language you're using. | | When a religious person says they "believe" something, it | means they operate as if it were true even though they have | no evidence to indicate it as such (a.k.a. the god of the | gaps). | | When a scientist says they "believe" something, it means all | evidence gathered so far indicates that it is true, but if | more data comes in and a different conclusion is drawn, then | the belief should be abandoned. | | These are two entirely different concepts, but in English we | tend to just say "believe". The scientific "belief" is more | akin to a mathematical theorem: - if X, then Y - All data | indicates X is probably true, so for now I believe Y. - New | data indicates X is probably false, so I no longer believe Y. | | And of course when you're engineering something, it's not | that simple because you need contingencies. X may have a 99% | chance of being true, but you still need to have a plan for | for that 1% case. | | None of this is something that religion considers whatsoever; | with religion, a belief is true and anything contrary to that | belief is considered false, even if that thing is a | measurement of reality itself. There are still huge swaths of | people who believe a person thousands of years ago was | immaculately conceived, walked on water, turned water into | wine, all things that you and I know are inconsistent with | reality. But all contrary evidence simply doesn't matter, the | "belief" remains. This is the antithesis of science. | systemvoltage wrote: | Yet your opinion falls in the same criteria on limitations | of the language you're confining it to. "believe in | science" can mean what you said, i.e "it means all evidence | gathered so far indicates that it is true, but if more data | comes in and a different conclusion is drawn, then the | belief should be abandoned"; however, it was also | exemplified during COVID as "You're not allowed to question | it no matter what merit you have, no matter how logical and | methodical your perspective is and regardless of the | content of your argument; science is untouchable". The | latter is absolutely a religion, but worse, it is a | religion that's masquerading as real science, the former, | dictating public policy. Far more dangerous and destructive | than your run of the mill religion/faith. | humanrebar wrote: | > When a religious person says they "believe" something, it | means they operate as if it were true even though they have | no evidence to indicate it as such (a.k.a. the god of the | gaps). | | In practice religious (or spiritual) people are a rather | diverse bunch and it's not all that helpful to paint with | too broad of a brush. | | I will point out that in at least Christian theology, | "faith" and "trust" are basically synonyms. In the original | Greek of the New Testament, it's literally the same word. | | In that sense, making choices based on trust in God or | making decisions based on trust in science are really | fairly similar. And quite often they're not contradictory | either. | | For example, both science and scriptures say worrying is | bad for you, so someone can try to minimize worry based on | faith in science and faith in scripture simultaneously. | | I'll also point out that a lot of the "scientific" | objections to religions boil down to metaphysical | disagreements about the nature of observation of the nature | of a (notional, at least) deity. I put "scientific" in | scare quotes because science itself only makes sense given | some assumptions, like the axiom that it's reasonable to | assume things do not exist until it's definitely proven | they do. That's a valid opinion, but it's not scientific as | such. Another common assumption is that a creator and a | fossil record (for instance) are somehow incompatible. As | if a creator can create the cosmos but a fossil record is a | bit much somehow. | | Anyway, I think folks would find each other more thoughtful | and reasonable if they'd take some time to listen more. | There are lots of misconceptions in all directions in these | discussions. | bjt2n3904 wrote: | Science must always report the truth. What was the old saying? | "That which can be destroyed by truth, should be"? | | Whenever science attempts to prop up political regimes by | obscuring the truth, then tragedy and travesty occurs. | dcow wrote: | 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. | Enginerrrd wrote: | >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 alongside the most | athletic, attractive, smart, well-liked Aryan looking kid. | | They'd bring them both up in front of the class and from that | point on, they'd use "scientific" discussion and observation | of their qualities to convince the kids that the Aryan kids | were superior in every way. I'll tell you what, I was a | pretty savy independent thinker and empathetic kid, but I | really think I might have fallen for that type of technique, | masquerading as science. | SubiculumCode wrote: | and this is, if you read the actual guidelines proposed, | exactly what they are guarding against: inappropriate | overgeneralization. | [deleted] | timr wrote: | Guarding against overgeneralization is not something we | need new scientific heresy rules to prevent. It's already | part of being a good scientist. It's also a subjective | bar, and adding "inappropriate" to that makes it entirely | fungible. | | Moreover, I've spent the last 2+ years _horrified_ by how | willing "scientists" have been to generalize to wild | real-world conclusions from miniscule data based on | Twitter outrage, so I have zero faith that a board of | clerics is going to use these rules with magnanimity. | Whichever political faction that controls the board will | be tempted to define "inappropriate" to mean "whatever | conclusion we don't like". | | Just to make it concrete: run an RCT that shows that | masks don't have any effect on Covid transmission? Good | luck getting that published in a top journal, even today. | With these new rules, _literally anyone who doesn 't like | the conclusions_ will claim that the result is an | "overgeneralization". There will be no study large enough | to satisfy the clerisy...unless The Science says | something approved, of course. | | --- | | Edit: and lest you think I am _exaggerating_ with my | example, consider the following, directly quoted from the | new guidelines: | | > Harms can also arise indirectly, as a result of the | publication of a research project or a piece of scholarly | communication - for instance, stigmatization of a | vulnerable human group or potential use of the results of | research for unintended purposes (e.g., public policies | that undermine human rights or misuse of information to | threaten public health). | | They're literally saying that they're open to censoring | research that might be "misused" to "threaten public | health". And they've defined it broadly enough that | pretty much anything that displeases "a vulnerable human | group" can be covered. Convenient. | tarakat wrote: | Good thing this practice has since ceased, and is entirely | absent from movies and news reporting, where care is taken | that even the most maligned groups are represented by, | well, representative individuals, instead of cherry-picking | the most unlikable members. | wizofaus wrote: | Hey at least Stranger Things had one semi-likable | Russian. | 8note wrote: | Stranger things has had many likeable Russians though? | wizofaus wrote: | For sufficiently small values of "many" and broad | definitions of "likeable", perhaps... | jtbayly wrote: | I assume you're being facetious? | thisiscorrect wrote: | https://mobile.twitter.com/StupidWhiteAds | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvNNtBmA3SQ | BurningFrog wrote: | It can be enforced by Nature refusing to publish papers with | bad results, obviously. | dcow wrote: | Shouldn't nature already be doing that? | | The question is how do you define _bad results_ if you | include provisions for socially constructed feelings about | whether results are socially and politically correct or | not. | | I hope hope hope hope hope underneath all the crummy filler | language and what appears to be rationalization for a | distinctly unscientific expansion of editorial discretion | to suppress unsightly factual results, _Nature_ is simply | saying: _don 't study social constructs, it's not | scientific_, a phrase with which I think I loosely agree | (without deeper thought as to whether there are valid | situations to study socially constructed groups that can't | be better expressed by studying the non-social-construct | characteristic). | | If that's all this is, I think we'll be fine. But I have a | real hard time believing that Nature would allow a paper | that found there to be cognitive discrepancies between | people with genealogical lineages that closely align to the | socially constructed races, under these new guidelines, | since arguably the "effects on society" might be negative. | | And I know people who would ignore the science and fight to | the metaphorical death to suppress that type of information | regardless of the terminology used. So, understandably, I'm | not super confident this will be handled carefully and | appropriately. Notice there is no burden of proof or | scientific rigor required to determine that the effects | some some research _are_ negatively impacting society. A | presumption that they _might_ is all that 's needed. I | worry scientific pursuit will suffer. | mizzack wrote: | > And many many people will be fooled. | | At least you can spot the acolytes with "I believe in | Science" bumper stickers and yard signs. Science is not a | belief system. | throwawayacc2 wrote: | No, but the trappings of science have been used to dress | the new religion of the west. Same old shit, we just don't | call it god now, we call it "the science". | | We are romans in the early 5th century. What's coming won't | be pretty. | dcow wrote: | Isn't it crazy how easy it is to see but how inevitable | the outcome ultimately is? Why must future generations | repeat the mistakes of the past? This is the human | condition. | mosdave wrote: | first as tragedy, then as farce | NoboruWataya wrote: | Is it not? I certainly don't know or understand even a | fraction of what would be considered established science, | but if a credible expert tells me that something is | supported by established science I will believe it over | something like religious dogma. I consider myself to be a | "believer" in science. | Banana699 wrote: | "Believe" is an overloaded word. In one sense, it's | simply the content of your mental state. In basic | epistemology, Knowledge is defined as "Justified True | Belief", i.e. when your mental state matches the actual | state of the world for the "right" reasons (this is | surprisingly tricky to make formal, see [1])If your head | is a memory cell, your beliefs are the actual 0s or 1s | inside it. | | In other senses, "beliefs" are an identity, and some | people like to think theirs are more based on science | than others. "Believing" in science amounts to adhering | to a broad package of ethical and lifestyle choices that | _references_ science to various degrees, their followers | believe this gives them more legitimacy than other | lifesyles or ethics systems, but the actual degree to | which they are justified by science varies enormously. | | To take 2 extremes : | | (1) Taking a stance against fossil fuel is "believing in | science" because (good, credible) science says those | increase carbon footprint which in turn disrupts the | climate in a huge variety of ways, technically this | doesn't necessarily imply to oppose fossil fuel as | science doesn't have normative component (science doesn't | care - in the strictest sense - if human civilization is | destroyed or signficantly harmed), but with only an | additional few, normally agreed-upon, assumptions you can | get there. | | (2) Taking a stance against biological-women-exclusive | sports is "believing in science" according to the stance | followers because a few studies of shaky foundations and | questionable funding says there is no unfair advantage to | those who had male puberty, although there are tons of | other studies that disagree. | | Those who say (loudly) they "believe in science" are | usually using "believe" in the non-philosophical sense, | and the viewpoints they love to push most are usually | (2)-like rather than (1)-like. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem | mizzack wrote: | Science exists in a perpetual state of being supported or | challenged by evidence. If the clergy ("credible expert", | Nature) make it impossible to challenge the orthodoxy | ("established science") then it _is_ dogma. | | By being a "believer" in science as you've laid it out, | you aren't believing in science as a process, but science | as an institution. | rplst8 wrote: | >Science exists in a perpetual state of being supported | or challenged by evidence | | One problem with that. Some sciences, particularly soft | or social sciences cross broadly into culture and "ways | of life". There are certain things today that cannot be | questioned without getting shouted down or deplatformed. | So challenging the current widely held scientific facts | can be career ending. | xboxnolifes wrote: | That's why there are quite a few people who don't | consider some of such fields sciences. I have half a | heart to agree with that stance. That's not to say those | fields don't have value, but science is the process of | building reproduceable, falsifiable evidence. If you | can't do that, then you aren't practicing science. | 0xChain wrote: | psyc wrote: | I guarantee you that if the guideline documents in TFA came | to the attention of Twitter, they'd already be dated, and | somebody would start righteous-indignation-tweeting to get | their personal army to boycott Nature until they change it to | say what the mob wants it to say. And I'm not being flip. For | once. | UnpossibleJim wrote: | >>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 self | censor then as well? | rrauenza wrote: | 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." | UnpossibleJim wrote: | If people are truly worried about electing people like | Donald Trump they'll broaden education and, in particular, | education in the hard sciences like maths and computer | science to bolster critical thinking and logic. At that | point we won't elect reality show hucksters who blatantly | lie and foment sedition. | makeitdouble wrote: | We should get past the belief that those who aren't on | our political side are just lacking education and not | thinking properly. | | You might despise the candidate (and to my opinion most | candidate can be despised in many ways), but that doesn't | put all their voters at the candidate's level, nor | preclude supporters from "using" their candidates to push | a specific aspect. | | To me that's the lesson times and times again, when we | think some candidate is obviously non viable and we're | just dumdfounded as they're elected. | nradov wrote: | And yet a surprising number of violent terrorists have | engineering degrees. | | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal- | of-... | UnpossibleJim wrote: | That's a fascinating paper. There are a couple of issues | I take with it. Their dismissal of recruitment of | engineers because they use them recklessly in terror | attacks doesn't seem to hold much water. If They were | recruited on the promise of heaven by Jihad, then | logically, they would want to die by Jihad. And the small | sample size, plus their own mentioned Saudi Exception | seem to flaw their own paper, even to them. | | But it's still fascinating and a great paper, thank you | for sharing! Plus the over representation of both Nazis | and Islamist terrorist groups is fascinating. I'm | completely geeked out! Thanks again! | giantg2 wrote: | "If people are truly worried about electing people like | Donald Trump they'll broaden education and, in | particular, education in the hard sciences like maths and | computer science to bolster critical thinking and logic. | At that point we won't elect reality show hucksters who | blatantly lie and foment sedition." | | If our choices at election time continue ro be between a | shit sandwich and a shit sandwich without the bread, we | will continue to have similar issues. Lesser of two evils | and all that. | | Ps which one has the bread is just a matter of | perspective for each individual. | haunter wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism | abeppu wrote: | I think that's a pretty unreasonable comparison. There's a | difference between religious dogma which makes claims about | reality, and norms or ethics. Discrimination and harm as | discussed in this document isn't about factual findings, but is | about "superiority or inferiority of one human group over | another" (i.e. a value judgement), "the rights and dignities of | an individual or human group" (i.e. social norms and | conventions), "text or images that ... disparage" (again, value | judgement), "embody singular, privileged perspectives" (an | issue of viewpoint, not disagreement about facts in reality). | | None of these prevent researchers from sharing their evidence- | based conclusions, only the projection of value, status, | dignity, or privilege onto those findings. As a society, we can | agree to be civil, respectful and uphold particular values | while we investigate objective reality. | | Trying to claim that an ethical stance for non-discrimination | is equivalent to creationism or geocentrism is making type | error; one makes claims about norms and how we should behave, | and one makes claims about how the world works whether | irrespective of our beliefs or behavior. | elefanten wrote: | But that's not what the quoted text is saying. It's saying | research whose outcomes could be "harmful" (where the | definition of "harmful" is very broad) may have harms that | "outweigh" the benefits... implying it shouldn't be done. | | And now you've attached a high leverage handle to research | allocation/gatekeeping and put it in deeply politicized hands | that don't care about the research. | DiggyJohnson wrote: | 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. | silicon2401 wrote: | > What happens when we stop agreeing on what the "good" is? | | "We" always agree on what the good is. If YOU don't agree, | well, we'll have to sort that out, won't we? | 0xChain wrote: | mgoldstein5 wrote: | anon291 wrote: | Exactly, the process of applying scientific results to human | society falls well within the realm of politics. We should | not allow scientific bureaucrats to have a say in the kinds | of policies implemented, but rather limit their contribution | to answering empirical questions based on inquiries presented | by actual politicians. | blueflow wrote: | > 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. | DiggyJohnson wrote: | No, I don't think we did. I was thinking about this when I | wrote it, too. That's been the case in the past, present, | and future. | | Glad someone picked that out. | klyrs wrote: | No, there is no universal "good" otherwise wars would not | occur. The American Civil War and WW2 are pretty classical | examples of massive disagreements over the legitimacy of | certain classes of humans. Had those wars not ended the way | they did, black people would still be property, and Jews, | Romani, and LGBT people would have been exterminated. There | are still people who wish that we lived in that alternative | history. Democracy is always a compromise, and when that | breaks down, you get wars. | EarlKing wrote: | You are conflating object and subject... the thing and | its perception. Good can exist even as we disagree over | its definition. Some people are simply right, and some | are simply wrong. We are not gods. | brightball wrote: | In the 90s before mass internet adoption, it sure felt like | it. | | We had disagreements, but nothing compared to what we see | today. | [deleted] | Broken_Hippo wrote: | I wouldn't call being on the receiving end of racial | slurs for dating outside your "race", being shunned for | being queer, and other such things mere "disagreements". | (This was me, as a teen, in the 90s). | | It is really easy to romanticize the past, back when you | were younger and just didn't have the same grasp of the | world. Especially if you had a decent enough life at the | time. | barry-cotter wrote: | > So instead how about this theory: the internet in | general was pretty wealth-marked in 1998 (far more than | we realized, with our American mythology of universal | white suburban middle-classness and "global village" | Internet mythology) BUT, of people who were more wealthy | in 1998, the most likely to NOT have internalized upper- | class practices were the grandfathers from the "Silent" | or "Greatest" generations before the postwar "mass middle | class". Our parents were beavery professionals who | settled into the suburban cocoon, we knew we were | destined for glory (or at least selective colleges) from | birth, but THEY were socialized into some pool hall, | street gang, farmhand, enlisted man kinda culture where | boldness of assertion counted more than patient | derivation from shared principles. | | > And if the Anglophone internet is ::gestures:: like | this now maybe it's cause it's less of a professional- | class preserve? The dividing line maybe being smartphones | where "people on the internet" went from "people who | specifically spend $X/mo on it as luxury" to "people with | telephone service"? That's a real possibility, that for | all the "Global Village" stuff the wondrous effect of the | '90s internet was to create a cultural space that was | MORE gatekept by wealth and education. | | > That's... kind of depressing, though. "Haha you thought | the world was getting better because you were eliminating | elitist barriers but actually it's cause you were making | them higher, which is good because the poor and non-elite | are disproportionately idiots with worthless ideas and to | the extent they're on top of things the thing they're on | top of is undermining the basis of a good society, and | anyway those times were a phenomenon of a narrow early | adopter base and you'll never ever get them back unless | you make the non-elite economically and politically | irrelevant." | | > Depressing but very well precedented, that's exactly | the arc newsprint, radio, and TV followed before. | | https://kontextmaschine.tumblr.com/post/185164859368/your | -gr... | psyc wrote: | Everyone's gonna tell you this is fully explained by | nostalgia and various cognitive biases, actually, cuz | that's what we do hyea. But I'll back you all day. I know | they literally can't hear it, but I always have the urge | to tell Gen Y and later that for a minute in the mid-late | 90's we had this shit mostly, not totally - that'll never | happen - but mostly figured out. And then they blew it | all up, and damned us all to hell. And they'll never, | ever know that it happened. | rurp wrote: | I would go further and say we actually do have quite a | bit of hard evidence that societal disagreements were | more civil several decades ago. Bipartisan legislation, | violent threats against public figures, mass murders, and | attempts to violently overthrow an election have all | gotten objectively worse since the rise of the internet. | | I don't know how much the internet has _caused_ this | deterioration, but it is strongly correlated. | coryrc wrote: | The, uh, US civil war. | | Murders have dropped every decade for the last five. | forbiddenvoid wrote: | I don't think this is true. I think a lot of people were | insulated from information that created a perception for | them that those disagreements didn't exist. | | A lot of people are surprised to find out that people who | don't live near them don't share their values. | kansface wrote: | > I don't think this is true. I think a lot of people | were insulated from information that created a perception | for them that those disagreements didn't exist. | | This is correct. The take away is something more along | the lines of: when people don't know they disagree and | therefore don't define themselves in terms of | disagreement and further structure their lives around | disagreement, they more readily work together; | disagreements aren't attacks on personal | branding/identity. | brightball wrote: | Oh, that was always true. It just wasn't possible for | those people to spend all day yelling at each other for | it. | | The context of the disagreements was largely limited to | newspapers and politicians. Some assumption of | professionalism, editing and journalistic integrity was | included with nationwide dialogues. | | The internet, Twitter, political amplification, bot | amplification, media consolidation, etc have made it | 1000x worse. | | Before, you could disagree on a topic and go about your | day. Now you are beaten over the head with every topic | constantly to remind you how much you disagree with it. | forbiddenvoid wrote: | Some people could disagree on a topic and go about their | day. That isn't true for everyone. One person's | disagreement is another person's human rights. | | A lot of people prefer the comfort of ignorance to the | discomfort of that knowledge. | brightball wrote: | And other people prefer to incite people to better | control them via polarization. | throwawayacc2 wrote: | And other people just pretend and seek attention, taking | the tiniest discomfort and screeching "human rights! | human rights!" left right and centre. All while every | government institution and corporation bends over | backwards to please them. | | A lot of people prefer the comfort of ignorance to the | discomfort of that knowledge and even more prefer the | comfort of their self made moral high horse from which | they chastise everyone they deem unfit. | giantg2 wrote: | "A lot of people are surprised to find out that people | who don't live near them don't share their values." | | Maybe. I feel like those people might be living under a | rock. With all the media today it seems unlikely that an | individual isn't attacked on at least one belief. I know | I see constant attacks on my beliefs. | | The problem is that with fast transport, we are extending | many laws to the larger geographic area (state or | national level), which means increasing the size of the | negatively affected groups since we are not homogeneous. | | Edit: why disagree? | teawrecks wrote: | The first part is just basic science: don't draw generalized | conclusions from data that was poorly sampled. | | But I agree the second part is questionable. Scientists | shouldn't decide whether something is right or wrong. They just | conduct experiments, gather data, draw conclusions, and share | the results. Obviously they should consider the ethical impacts | of conducting their experiments, but beyond that, all valid | conclusions should be welcome. | bergenty wrote: | 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. | DiggyJohnson wrote: | The stated, overt goal of that theocracy was to save the | souls of individuals. I'm not sure this distinction is as | real as you state. | qikInNdOutReply wrote: | A theocracy is nothing more then a "protect the rights of | individuals" for contract safety (marriage), primitive | justice and against more then absolute ruler overreach, going | heywire and corrupt. | | This whole machine will reincarnate again and again though. | With fairytale or without, the part of society not trusting | the judical system to uphold contracts and social safety, | will make there voices heard in pseudo religion after pseudo | religion. | | Let me venture into the testable area. I venture the guess, | that the more reliable and longer existing a states social | safety net is, the more religion will be absent from its | society. It should also corellate with reliability of the | justice system. | eli_gottlieb wrote: | > _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._ | | Do these people think there are motherfucking X-Men living | among us who we want to save from stigma? These kinds of | statements read like the authors don't actually believe people | are meaningfully equal. | dcow wrote: | Exactly. What happens when some research may feel socially | dirty but is actually a huge boon to some group? I can't | stand the privilege required to say you know better for some | other group. Let groups of people stand up for themselves and | call out BS when they see it. How can the hegemony possibly | understand the feelings of minority groups? | User23 wrote: | What do you mean by "meaningfully equal?" | | It strikes me as a tricky set of not always terribly related | concepts. As a Christian I believe all human beings are equal | in inherent dignity. As an American who likes the Anglo- | American legal tradition I believe that all people ought to | be equal before the law, even though that's observably not | the case. As someone who has performed hundreds of tech | interviews and worked in this industry a long time, I don't | believe people are remotely close to equal in developer | ability or productivity and I don't see any way they could be | made to be without bringing high performers down to the | lowest common denominator. | 8note wrote: | FollowingTheDao wrote: | > Do these people think there are motherfucking X-Men living | among us | | In fact, there are. You know, we all have genetic | differences, and most studies do not account for these | genetic differences. So a medicine that helps one person | might cause drug induced Lupus in another. | | Lithium is a good example of this stigma. I have | Schizoaffective Bipolar Disorder and Lithium is constantly | forces on me even though it does not work. I am what they | call a "Lithium Non-Responder" and this has bee shown to be | linked to varying genetics. | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4814312/ | | The stigma is that researchers still think there is only one | genetic human. | | And what do you think the X-Men was about? It was about | genetic difference and mental health. It is about trying to | have people see that we have value that others cannot see | because all they see is the illness. | implements wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbamazepine can be | effective for those for whom Lithium is ineffective or | causes adverse reactions. | FollowingTheDao wrote: | Yes, been there. It gave me lupus symptoms. I have much | better luck eating only seafood and no plant oils. These | omega 3's inhibit these sodium channels as well as the | calcium channels implicated in mood disorders. | | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20167245/ | immigrantheart wrote: | Seems that they show their true colors. | antiquark wrote: | > ableist | | This seems like an implicit denial that people can have | different abilities. | armchairhacker wrote: | This reminds me of the short story in "I, Robot" (Asimov) about | the robot who could read people's minds. | | The robots in that world were hard-coded to be incapable of | injury humans, and the mind-reading robot considered emotional | damage "injury". Of course the robot got into a paradox where | it had to hurt _someone's_ feelings, so it just...died. | dane-pgp wrote: | I believe the conventional orthography nowadays is: eMoTiOnAl | dAmAgE | | https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=eMoTiOnAl%20. | .. | setgree wrote: | > In some cases, however, potential harms to the populations | studied may outweigh the benefit of publication. | | I see a counterfactual claim ("may outweigh") and therefore an | opportunity for some causal identification, i.e. a scientific | answer! | | An RCT would be ideal, but we might also look to the literature | on attitude change in general to see how new information | impacts discourse and attitudes. Here's a few things off the | top of my head: | | * https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/692739 | | * https://alexandercoppock.com/graham_coppock_2021.html | | * https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev- | psych-... | | I think that in general, researchers find racial/prejudicial | attitudes very resistant to change, either in an anti- | prejudicial or "confirm my existing biases" direction... | bitwize wrote: | We are converging on a new definition of truth which takes into | account social harm. Claims which protect the marginalized and/or | harm those groups deemed to be hate groups must be taken as true; | claims which do the opposite must be taken as false. | | It kind of sucks if you believe in objectivity -- but the | postmodernists taught us there is no such thing. Any pretense to | objectivity is a means to trick your sorry ass and gain power | over you. Like it or not, this is the world of Marcuse, Derrida, | Baudrillard and Foucault. | throwawayacc2 wrote: | I cannot help feeling like what we see in things like this is | the manifestation of a new religion. My only hope is, this | woke/scientist religion doesn't become a new christianity and | instead dies sooner. But even if it goes the way of | christianity my only happy though is there will be a point in | the future when the wokes will be looked down with the same | disgust and revulsion they look down on christianity now. | ElCheapo wrote: | letmeinhere wrote: | Sounds like a nightmare! | letmeinhere wrote: | Count me out! I, for one, will pursue my paperclip maximization | without regard to any such trivialities. | FollowingTheDao wrote: | > 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. | ElCheapo wrote: | 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 | throwawayacc2 wrote: | Evolution stops below the neck, everyone knows that :) | n4r9 wrote: | 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 read the actual guidelines | before forming a strong opinion about the linked statement: | https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/e... | | I'd also recommend mulling for a moment on the trade-off between | scientific freedom and ethics. Because it has always existed and | journals have for a very long time had a position on what is an | appropriate trade-off. We've come far since scientists were able | to cut live dogs open without anesthetic for their experiments, | and that's a _good_ thing. | | The great majority of the guidelines are in my opinion very | specific (as opposed to vague) and relate either to the conduct | of the research or to the language of the paper (as opposed to | the results of the research). They are geared towards the removal | of bias and make reference to guidelines set out by other well- | established organisations. | | Probably the most problematic guideline is this one: | | > [editors reserve the right to request modifications to] 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. | | I concede that this part requires further refinement, since it | looks like it could be used to refuse results that aren't "woke". | My good-faith take is that it really means "be careful you don't | give matches to the pyromaniac". For example, if you're going to | publish a result about substance abuse amongst different | demographics, please be very cautious about the risk that certain | institutions might use it as a pseudo-justification for | persection of minorities. | | At the end of the day, 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. | nathanaldensr wrote: | > _At the end of the day, 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._ | | You state this like it is or should be fact, but this is | precisely the problem. Science should be the beginning of a | chain starting at knowledge and leading to policy: science -> | politics -> policy. It is not the job of scientists to try and | predict or assume reactions to science; that partially inverts | the flow: politics -> science -> policy. By placing politics | first, science _becomes_ politics, as nothing disapproved will | reach the science phase of the process. | Banana699 wrote: | > 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 hires. But the | moment you start saying "All papers dealing with topic X are | refused, regardless of supporting evidence or | explanatory\predictive power" then you're literally not doing | science. You're playing dress up. | | Every single philosophy of science from pre-Popper onwards is | very clear that good science doesn't give a single shit about | the moral content of an idea and how politically-correct it is, | only how well supported it is and how elegantly it explains | existing data and how accurately it predicts new data. | | Evolution says you're no better and no worse than rats, who are | also your distant cousins btw, neuroscience says that what we | call "you" is really just a bunch of electrochemistry that | anybody can learn to manipulate and push to do things. Science | doesn't give a shit about your panic that somebody can | "misinterpret" those results, that's your problem, stop being | lazy and find other solutions to it, don't censor science. | kosyblysk666 wrote: | BurningFrog wrote: | So if Nature has fallen, what replaces it? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-25 23:00 UTC)