4 ms·
I get nervous every time I see the word “weaponize” in an article. It is usually talking about some neutral tool (like science or speech or encryption or the I
by RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
I get nervous every time I see the word “weaponize” in an article.
It is usually talking about some neutral tool (like science or speech or encryption or the Internet) and complaining that people they don’t like are using it in a way they don’t like.
The biggest epistemological advantage of science is that it is self-correcting even in the face of biased scientists. Suppression of science or only allowing science to be used or funded certain ways is self-defeating.
- _jal 5y ago> Suppression of science [...] is self-defeating. That depends on what your goals are, doesn't it? If you were a tobacco exec in the 90s seeking a golden parachute, I rather suspect it was highly successful.
- titzer 5y ago> it is self-correcting Unfortunately we can't reverse environmental disasters, poisoning, cancer, and death, so we really need to be proactive on some things.
- throwawayboise 5y agoThis is appeal to fear, a logical fallacy.
- titzer 5y agoThat's absurd. Being careful with irreversible damage is not fear, it's completely rational.
- JasonFruit 5y agoI don't see any real problem with that usage. It seems like the right way to express that a neutral tool is being used to cause harm — that is, as a weapon. For example, if you complained that my eight year-old is weaponizing a hammer, you'd be a) probably right, and b) correctly expressing that he's using it in a way that's likely to cause harm.
- beaconstudios 5y agoall tools are neutral, but when put into the hands of a person they're going to be used for a purpose, and that purpose often has moral implications. The scientific process is self-correcting, but it also doesn't exist in a vacuum. As they say, science progresses one funeral at a time.
- wpietri 5y agoIt's not self-defeating at all. The record clearly shows that rich companies delayed a science-based reckoning for decades, profiting greatly even though others were harmed and killed. The executives behind that strategy got more money and often retired happy. The "scientists" doing the shoddy science also got what they wanted. Did some of the issues eventually get settled on the side of truth? Sure, but with how much additional misery and how many graves? And how much time did actual scientists have to waste proving something wasn't every really in question? But we know the game goes on. And even if science statistically gets there in the end, there's no particular reason to think it gets there for absolutely every issue in a timeframe that matters.
- clarge1120 5y agoI honestly don’t understand why this is being downvoted. Anyone care to offer an objective reason?