6 ms·

I actually read the Scientific American article because I have previously read Scott Aaronson's blog and he doesn't looks to me like someone who would write any

I actually read the Scientific American article because I have previously read Scott Aaronson's blog and he doesn't looks to me like someone who would write anything before thinking about it. The SA article is a complete piece of crap. I just hope this doesn't goes the same way it did when RMS asked to give Marvin Minsky the benefit of doubt.

rbanffy 5y ago
The issue with RMS is not that he wanted Minsky to be given the benefit of doubt but numerous other issues and instances where his own behaviour was reprehensible. As a figurehead of an important movement he should think of what effect his personal reputation has on the overall movement.
- LaunchAway1 5y ago
  The issue was that RMS did not conform to some ideology and so he was bullied. The fact that he is wrong or right about his opinions it's not even relevant. We have normalized ad hominem attacks, amplified through social networks. Reputation was everything in medieval science and we are moving in that direction.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    Ad hominem would be using his misbehavior to attack, say, the FSF. Noting the fact he regularly made his female coworkers (and not only coworkers) uncomfortable is not an ad hominem - it's a direct criticism of his attitudes.
    - esarbe 5y ago
      Spreading falsehoods about a person is also called 'libel'.
- irthomasthomas 5y ago
  Those issues reported about RMS turned out to be falsehoods, miss-quotes and exaggerations (apparently, the bed he kept in his office was for pulling all-nighters at work, not for raping people.). They never survived the fact check, and Stallman is back at the FSF. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26780192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26780192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26558348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26558348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535224
  - p_l 5y ago
    The accusation was that the bed made people uncomfortable, which is reasonable reaction when coupled with various other kinds of things he did to make people uncomfortable. As far as I know, the original allegation was not that he was raping anyone, though given the overall idiocy of mankind I'm not surprised it mutated this way. And not everyone was aware that he was living in that office, apparently. Personally, I think cleaning up one's act in ways that in no way compromise one's (public) stances would have been a low cost for keeping the most cushy academic job I ever heard of.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      "And not everyone was aware that he was living in that office, apparently." I never met him and yet I knew. He is notorious for doing that. I lived in my office for a few months, too, and the fact that you live there is pretty hard to hide from visitors. Starting with various small objects that do not fit into a normal office, ending with the fact that even with reasonable levels of hygiene the room tends to acquire a certain "human" smell, especially in the winter months when you can't just have the window open for most of the time. RMS is a worldwide known weirdo. I can understand that his behavior in general might make people uncomfortable, but trying to label him as a rapist was way off.
      - rbanffy 5y ago
        > I never met him and yet I knew. He is notorious for doing that. Met him once and that wouldn’t surprise me at all. He made a huge number of mistakes over his career and those eventually came back to haunt him. I’m not judging whether it’s fair or not, just acknowledging such things happen when you are a public figure.
hilbert42 5y ago
"The SA article is a complete piece of crap." Whether everyone agrees with you to the same degree is comparatively unimportant. However, there are several issues that arise from the SciAm article that are of key importance, these are: 1. From what the author, Monica R. McLemore, says in the article it's very clear that she has a political agenda and that by stating it in a forum such as SciAm, then she is acting in a very divisive manner. 2. McLemore is being extremely unfair by deliberately targeting a person's character. 'Shooting the messenger' for espousing or publishing information that has arisen from a person's research has to be about as low as an attack on a person's character can get. Moreover there's intellectual dishonesty in the attack: by assigning a person's character to a person's research work presupposes that one's moral philosophy always goes hand-in-hand with data that's arisen from one's research. This implies that a person's research cannot be separated from one's moral views, which, of course, is nonsense. It's about as stupid as saying that a person has to be a Republican to actually write about Republican philosophy when in fact anyone can do so. 3. An attack on a person's character by equating their moral position with the work that they do without definitive proof is woolly thinking, if this were in fact true then every defense lawyer would actually have to believe his or her client's statement in respect of their innocence. 4. The most disconcerting aspect of this story is the fact that the author is a person who holds a high and responsible position in society. To quote the SciAm article: "Monica R. McLemore is an associate professor in the Family Health Care Nursing Department and a clinician-scientist at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco." As such, the holder of any such a position has a duty of care to ensure that the views that he or she espouses are not only both fair and equitable in respect of all citizens but also they need to ensure that what's said adds to the cohesiveness of society and not the division thereof.
OOPMan 5y ago
You should try reading the self-authored "paper" the author of that op-ed linked to from said op-ed. It's...not great.

rbanffy 5y ago

The issue with RMS is not that he wanted Minsky to be given the benefit of doubt but numerous other issues and instances where his own behaviour was reprehensible. As a figurehead of an important movement he should think of what effect his personal reputation has on the overall movement.

LaunchAway1 5y ago
The issue was that RMS did not conform to some ideology and so he was bullied. The fact that he is wrong or right about his opinions it's not even relevant. We have normalized ad hominem attacks, amplified through social networks. Reputation was everything in medieval science and we are moving in that direction.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Ad hominem would be using his misbehavior to attack, say, the FSF. Noting the fact he regularly made his female coworkers (and not only coworkers) uncomfortable is not an ad hominem - it's a direct criticism of his attitudes.
  - esarbe 5y ago
    Spreading falsehoods about a person is also called 'libel'.
irthomasthomas 5y ago
Those issues reported about RMS turned out to be falsehoods, miss-quotes and exaggerations (apparently, the bed he kept in his office was for pulling all-nighters at work, not for raping people.). They never survived the fact check, and Stallman is back at the FSF. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26780192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26780192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26558348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26558348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535224
- p_l 5y ago
  The accusation was that the bed made people uncomfortable, which is reasonable reaction when coupled with various other kinds of things he did to make people uncomfortable. As far as I know, the original allegation was not that he was raping anyone, though given the overall idiocy of mankind I'm not surprised it mutated this way. And not everyone was aware that he was living in that office, apparently. Personally, I think cleaning up one's act in ways that in no way compromise one's (public) stances would have been a low cost for keeping the most cushy academic job I ever heard of.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    "And not everyone was aware that he was living in that office, apparently." I never met him and yet I knew. He is notorious for doing that. I lived in my office for a few months, too, and the fact that you live there is pretty hard to hide from visitors. Starting with various small objects that do not fit into a normal office, ending with the fact that even with reasonable levels of hygiene the room tends to acquire a certain "human" smell, especially in the winter months when you can't just have the window open for most of the time. RMS is a worldwide known weirdo. I can understand that his behavior in general might make people uncomfortable, but trying to label him as a rapist was way off.
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      > I never met him and yet I knew. He is notorious for doing that. Met him once and that wouldn’t surprise me at all. He made a huge number of mistakes over his career and those eventually came back to haunt him. I’m not judging whether it’s fair or not, just acknowledging such things happen when you are a public figure.

hilbert42 5y ago

"The SA article is a complete piece of crap." Whether everyone agrees with you to the same degree is comparatively unimportant. However, there are several issues that arise from the SciAm article that are of key importance, these are: 1. From what the author, Monica R. McLemore, says in the article it's very clear that she has a political agenda and that by stating it in a forum such as SciAm, then she is acting in a very divisive manner. 2. McLemore is being extremely unfair by deliberately targeting a person's character. 'Shooting the messenger' for espousing or publishing information that has arisen from a person's research has to be about as low as an attack on a person's character can get. Moreover there's intellectual dishonesty in the attack: by assigning a person's character to a person's research work presupposes that one's moral philosophy always goes hand-in-hand with data that's arisen from one's research. This implies that a person's research cannot be separated from one's moral views, which, of course, is nonsense. It's about as stupid as saying that a person has to be a Republican to actually write about Republican philosophy when in fact anyone can do so. 3. An attack on a person's character by equating their moral position with the work that they do without definitive proof is woolly thinking, if this were in fact true then every defense lawyer would actually have to believe his or her client's statement in respect of their innocence. 4. The most disconcerting aspect of this story is the fact that the author is a person who holds a high and responsible position in society. To quote the SciAm article: "Monica R. McLemore is an associate professor in the Family Health Care Nursing Department and a clinician-scientist at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco." As such, the holder of any such a position has a duty of care to ensure that the views that he or she espouses are not only both fair and equitable in respect of all citizens but also they need to ensure that what's said adds to the cohesiveness of society and not the division thereof.

OOPMan 5y ago

You should try reading the self-authored "paper" the author of that op-ed linked to from said op-ed. It's...not great.