5 ms·

Ehhh, most studies in this realm have a 'results' section and 'discussion' section. I disagree that experts in their field can't have an opinion laid out in th

Ehhh, most studies in this realm have a 'results' section and 'discussion' section. I disagree that experts in their field can't have an opinion laid out in the discussion section, given that it follows from the analysis and results from the previous sections. That being said, the page is currently timing out, so I can' even read the article...

oytis 6y ago
'Results' present the new knowledge gained in a short form. 'Discussion' is normally an invitation to scientific discussion, not a political one. But even if it has the latter, it's still not the result of a study, just a piece of opinion that authors saw appropriate to include. The paper [1] really seems more like a call to action from ethicists published in a scientific journal as a study for whatever reason. [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2020.1861364 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2020.1...
- i_love_limes 6y ago
  You started off with the idea that research papers "can't tell you what should be done", which it seems like you disagree with now? > 'Discussion' is normally an invitation to scientific discussion, not a political one To think that those are so distinct is perhaps naive. Thanks for the link, it does seem to be a call to action as you said, but backed by many studies across many disciplines. Which would make it both a scientific and political.
  - oytis 6y ago
    It was more meant as an imperative, as in, "a president can't despise his own citizens", even though we empirically know it's not true, but... To me is a huge abuse of the authority of science. The results of science normally lie above any democratic discussion. No mater how you vote and what your values are COVID-19 exists, and global warming exists either. If you publish an opinion piece - even if it's a well-informed opinion - as a scientific paper, you are basically saying "here's what the policy should be, and you're not entitled to discuss it, because we know better". I'm not against scientists having an informed opinion an political matter, and I'm not even against scientific journals publishing opinions if they consider them important enough, but there should be a distinction in this case between the part where science is published and the opinion column.
    - i_love_limes 6y ago
      They do that already... Distinguishing between 'results' and 'discussion'...
- mbbutler 6y ago
  Yes, the authors published their article in the Journal of Bioethics, which is exactly where this type of article/argument is supposed to be published. What is your complaint exactly?
  - oytis 6y ago
    I disagree that the purpose of ethics as an academic discipline is to tell people what to do.

oytis 6y ago

'Results' present the new knowledge gained in a short form. 'Discussion' is normally an invitation to scientific discussion, not a political one. But even if it has the latter, it's still not the result of a study, just a piece of opinion that authors saw appropriate to include. The paper [1] really seems more like a call to action from ethicists published in a scientific journal as a study for whatever reason. [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2020.1861364 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2020.1...

i_love_limes 6y ago
You started off with the idea that research papers "can't tell you what should be done", which it seems like you disagree with now? > 'Discussion' is normally an invitation to scientific discussion, not a political one To think that those are so distinct is perhaps naive. Thanks for the link, it does seem to be a call to action as you said, but backed by many studies across many disciplines. Which would make it both a scientific and political.
- oytis 6y ago
  It was more meant as an imperative, as in, "a president can't despise his own citizens", even though we empirically know it's not true, but... To me is a huge abuse of the authority of science. The results of science normally lie above any democratic discussion. No mater how you vote and what your values are COVID-19 exists, and global warming exists either. If you publish an opinion piece - even if it's a well-informed opinion - as a scientific paper, you are basically saying "here's what the policy should be, and you're not entitled to discuss it, because we know better". I'm not against scientists having an informed opinion an political matter, and I'm not even against scientific journals publishing opinions if they consider them important enough, but there should be a distinction in this case between the part where science is published and the opinion column.
  - i_love_limes 6y ago
    They do that already... Distinguishing between 'results' and 'discussion'...
mbbutler 6y ago
Yes, the authors published their article in the Journal of Bioethics, which is exactly where this type of article/argument is supposed to be published. What is your complaint exactly?
- oytis 6y ago
  I disagree that the purpose of ethics as an academic discipline is to tell people what to do.