4 ms·
This is such a tired argument. Sure, politics is in everything down to the design of the armchair you are arguing from. That however doesn't fucking mean that
by blackbrokkoli 6y ago
This is such a tired argument.
Sure, politics is in everything down to the design of the armchair you are arguing from. That however doesn't fucking mean that all papers shall be considered equal?
Do you think you would be able to differentiate the value of a census statistics from a 2015 paper written by the state of Nevada from a 1930 census statistic paper from Nazi Germany? Excellent!
Because very obviously there is a line where science crosses into bullshit. Sure, the line is multidimensional, ever changing and very blurry. As you say, from finance to family everything factors in and there is no true objective way of doing science. That does not however mean we as humanity can get away with defeationist pseudo-enlightenment by just giving up every analysis of nuance or motive.
What Google is doing here is not in the territory of science anymore - you can and should argue that - and should be treated as such. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, whataboutism won't cut it.
Edit: grammar
- joshuaissac 6y ago> 1930 census statistic paper from Nazi Germany Minor point, but there was no Nazi Germany in 1930. They gained control of the government in 1932-1933.
- chaboud 6y agoI’m saying that papers should be read with a default position of skepticism and consideration of the motivations of the authors (and they all have an angle). When I read an ML paper with authors from Google, I assume they have an angle. When I read an ML Ethics paper with authors from Google, that already went double. Now it’s triple. So look at my argument differently. Every single scientific paper you read should be read as non-objective as a starting position. If it can overcome starting from that position with data, methodology, and reasoning, it’s a solid scientific paper.