3 ms·

> Anybody could tell you that a lot of people would be hurt by this document, regardless of its scientific merit. This is a ridiculous statement. Scientific me

> Anybody could tell you that a lot of people would be hurt by this document, regardless of its scientific merit. This is a ridiculous statement. Scientific merit should be the only consideration when you are saying something you believe is important. If you're engaged in small-talk, go ahead and throw scientific accuracy out the window, but not in anything substantial.

tptacek 9y ago
There is a very long list of odious things you can claim "science" justifies; in fact, it's kind of hard to think of something you can't six-degrees-of-science your way to defending. This isn't the rhetorical kill-shot you think it is.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  > There is a very long list of odious things you can claim "science" justifies; Does the length of such a list invalidate the items in the list? I don't see your point. > in fact, it's kind of hard to think of something you can't six-degrees-of-science your way to defending. Just because something is not directly implied by something else, doesn't mean there is no correlation. If you are working on a mathematical proof, would you give up if you cannot reach the end in 6 (or any arbitrary small number) of steps? Would you declare the assertion wrong? If yes, you're just a bad scientist.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Again, my argument here is simple: it is hard to think of a horrible thing you could say that you couldn't justify using the logic you presented upthread, which makes your argument seem pretty unpersuasive.
RaleyField 9y ago
> Scientific merit should be the only consideration More likely value to shareholders, in his setting.
andrewprock 9y ago
If you are a scientist, and publishing in a peer review journal, I think you are close to correct. If you are a dilettante coming to de novo conclusions about controversial topics, you probably aren't qualified to declare something as science.
YuriNiyazov 9y ago
This right here is actually the source of the problem. The current societal environment tells you "here are topics that you have to discuss with utmost sensitivity, even if you are completely confident you are right, and have all the evidence." Your (and presumably, the google employee that got fired) response? "Nah, I am right, so fuck your rules" It doesn't work that way.

tptacek 9y ago

There is a very long list of odious things you can claim "science" justifies; in fact, it's kind of hard to think of something you can't six-degrees-of-science your way to defending. This isn't the rhetorical kill-shot you think it is.

dingo_bat 9y ago
> There is a very long list of odious things you can claim "science" justifies; Does the length of such a list invalidate the items in the list? I don't see your point. > in fact, it's kind of hard to think of something you can't six-degrees-of-science your way to defending. Just because something is not directly implied by something else, doesn't mean there is no correlation. If you are working on a mathematical proof, would you give up if you cannot reach the end in 6 (or any arbitrary small number) of steps? Would you declare the assertion wrong? If yes, you're just a bad scientist.
- tptacek 9y ago
  Again, my argument here is simple: it is hard to think of a horrible thing you could say that you couldn't justify using the logic you presented upthread, which makes your argument seem pretty unpersuasive.

RaleyField 9y ago

> Scientific merit should be the only consideration More likely value to shareholders, in his setting.

andrewprock 9y ago

If you are a scientist, and publishing in a peer review journal, I think you are close to correct. If you are a dilettante coming to de novo conclusions about controversial topics, you probably aren't qualified to declare something as science.

YuriNiyazov 9y ago

This right here is actually the source of the problem. The current societal environment tells you "here are topics that you have to discuss with utmost sensitivity, even if you are completely confident you are right, and have all the evidence." Your (and presumably, the google employee that got fired) response? "Nah, I am right, so fuck your rules" It doesn't work that way.