20 ms·

Enrico Fermi comes to mind: “Whatever Nature has in store for mankind, unpleasant as it may be, men must accept, for ignorance is never better than knowledge.”

by nubero 4y ago

Enrico Fermi comes to mind: “Whatever Nature has in store for mankind, unpleasant as it may be, men must accept, for ignorance is never better than knowledge.” I guess he wasn’t talking about the magazine…

upsidesinclude 4y ago
That might be the finest rebuttal on offer
AlanYx 4y ago
It's interesting that the linked policy says almost the exact opposite of Fermi's statement, implying that ignorance is sometimes better than knowledge: "...considerations of harm can occasionally supersede the goal of seeking or sharing new knowledge, and a decision not to undertake or not to publish a project may be warranted."
- nubero 4y ago
  Indeed… The rot has spread frighteningly far.
  - WatchDog 4y ago
    "There you have it, you see how far the termites have spread, and how long and well they've dined." - Christopher Hitchens
- Banana699 4y ago
  I know the people behind statments like these are coming to it with extremly unintelligent and bad faith definitions and intentions, but the actual words are actually correct. If you had the option to delay humanity's discovery of atomic bombs to late 20th century or after, and therefore delay any substantial deep understanding of the atomic physics beneath, you would probably do it. If you had the atomic bomb, you probably wouldn't have shared it with Stalin's USSR or Hitler's Germany and, for that matter, Roosevelt's USA. If you had known in 1990 that the WWW would be used to spread propaganda and track dissidents, you would have probably liked to delay it till more security and decentralization is built in from the outset. This is a very well-discussed topic in philosophy of science and technology and good sci-fi. Fermi was probably talking about inevitable things, e.g. if climate is already worsening beyond human limits it's always good to know even if it's too late to do anything. But if knowledge (or our pursuit of it) would lead to new dangers, its perfecly reasonable to (try) to limit knowledge and its spread or pursuit. The dishonesty of the -ve IQ people behind attitudes like the criticized is that they see danger in everything and use moral panic to enforce views. If the actual "dangers" they are freaking out about are legitimate, they would have been justified to supress (non-violently) science and technology)
  - indymike 4y ago
    > If you had the option to delay humanity's discovery of atomic bombs to late 20th century or after, and therefore delay any substantial deep understanding of the atomic physics beneath, you would probably do it. The alternative was 20-30 million more dead people via conventional means. There were many teams around the world working to build the bomb. One always wonders about the German team and why they were not first - and I"m glad they were not. > philosophy of science Not sure what that is, but do not want.
    - bsagdiyev 4y ago
      > One always wonders about the German team and why they were not first - and I"m glad they were not. In regards to this, I believe they were on the right path but they were split in to three groups across Germany. They shared the radioactive material and because of this weren't able to achieve fission (?) due to not having enough material in one spot. Thank $diety for that. More info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_weapons_program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_weapons_progr...
    - EntropyIsAHoax 4y ago
      If you don't want philosophy of science, don't comment on an article about the philosophy of science? This isn't some fringe topic for "woke" people, philosophy is fundamental to science and has been from the beginning. It's questions from everything like "what even counts as science" to scientific ethics, to "what is the purpose of science". It's not always about ethics, in fact the 20th century philosophy of science debates were dominated by more practical topics like realism vs instrumentalism. You cannot just dismiss something you've never heard of and have no idea about
    - FabHK 4y ago
      Agreed on the first half of your comment. Philosophy of science, however, is a well established, important, and fascinating field. Keywords: Positivists/Viennese circle, Karl Popper and falsification, Feyerabend and Against Method, Thomas Kuhn and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, W. V. Quine and the Two Dogmas of Empiricism, the Science Wars.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Well, sometimes information can cause harm. For example, revealing a terminal diagnosis to a patient could lead to suicide. I don't think science should be censored, scientific inquiry should continue with integrity regardless of what people think. What I think is people who can't handle it should not have access to the truths revealed. I generally believe in unrestricted free information but I've been rethinking that for certain cases. It's not just gender identity. I've seen similar behavior in other groups such as obese people revolting against the "oppressive" science documenting the numerous risks associated with being overweight because it supposedly causes society to marginalize them.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - justnotworthit 4y ago
    It was common in the middle of the 20th century to not tell a terminally ill patient he/she was dying. We look back at that with horror. In your example, I'd prefer chosing (assisted) suicide or not. Surely you're not doing me a favor by not letting me die how I want.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      In 1972 people with horrific treatable diseases were being lied to, so that science could record exactly how they suffered and died: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study And that's what led to ethics rules that said you can't do that. You'd think you wouldn't need to write it down, but we did and we do. > By then, 28 patients had died directly from syphilis, 100 died from complications related to syphilis, 40 of the patients' wives were infected with syphilis, and 19 children were born with congenital syphilis.[15] > The 40-year Tuskegee Study was a major violation of ethical standards,[13] and has been cited as "arguably the most infamous biomedical research study in U.S. history."[16] Its revelation led to the 1979 Belmont Report and to the establishment of the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP)[17] and federal laws and regulations requiring institutional review boards for the protection of human subjects in studies.
colpabar 4y ago
323 4y ago
Fermi's quote is not acceptable for publication in Nature according to these new guidelines because he centered on the "men" privileged group and excluded "woman, non-binaries, ..." non-privileged groups.
cetahfh14615 4y ago
> ignorance is never better than knowledge this is a moral judgement and a strong claim. I can think of a few types of knowledge off the top of my head that aren't making the world a better place Something like learning how to tie a noose: this is (in most cases) bad knowledge. This isn't something anyone should learn unless they need it for something that isn't its best known purpose when it comes to something like race/gender/etc, I can't think of one positive usage of that kind of knowledge, if we can even call it that. I'd argue that even the idea of race/gender/etc is against the goal of equality and if we want true equality these ideas need to be discarded
- colordrops 4y ago
  You are conflating knowledge and arbitrarily constructed definitions. My understanding of knowledge is that it is based in some objective ground rather than a changeable definition. Race and gender are social constructs, not objective facts of reality. I agree though, discard social constructs.
- donatj 4y ago
  The knowledge of how to tie a noose hurts no one. Knowledge in and of itself is harmless at rest. As with all knowledge it’s what you do with it. Keeping people in the dark is an immoral solution to evil.
  - cetahfh14615 4y ago
    What knowledge is "in and of itself" means nothing because it exists in a context, the only thing that matters in the case of knowledge (or anything) is what's done with it and how it is useful
  - picardythird 4y ago
    And AR-15s hurt no one. Yet they are purposed to have massive killing power against humans, and massively amplify the damage a single ill person can do. Hypothetically there could be some type of weapon that once discovered could end all life on this planet. If that weapon was trivial to build, it would take 1 person with that knowledge to end eveything. Human knowledge is a human construct, and shouldn’t be thought about in absolutes.
BiteCode_dev 4y ago
Also, let's remind the author that quote next time he or she needs surgery: no aenestesia, ignorance is never better than knowledge.

by nubero 4y ago

upsidesinclude 4y ago

That might be the finest rebuttal on offer

AlanYx 4y ago

It's interesting that the linked policy says almost the exact opposite of Fermi's statement, implying that ignorance is sometimes better than knowledge: "...considerations of harm can occasionally supersede the goal of seeking or sharing new knowledge, and a decision not to undertake or not to publish a project may be warranted."

nubero 4y ago
Indeed… The rot has spread frighteningly far.
- WatchDog 4y ago
  "There you have it, you see how far the termites have spread, and how long and well they've dined." - Christopher Hitchens
Banana699 4y ago
I know the people behind statments like these are coming to it with extremly unintelligent and bad faith definitions and intentions, but the actual words are actually correct. If you had the option to delay humanity's discovery of atomic bombs to late 20th century or after, and therefore delay any substantial deep understanding of the atomic physics beneath, you would probably do it. If you had the atomic bomb, you probably wouldn't have shared it with Stalin's USSR or Hitler's Germany and, for that matter, Roosevelt's USA. If you had known in 1990 that the WWW would be used to spread propaganda and track dissidents, you would have probably liked to delay it till more security and decentralization is built in from the outset. This is a very well-discussed topic in philosophy of science and technology and good sci-fi. Fermi was probably talking about inevitable things, e.g. if climate is already worsening beyond human limits it's always good to know even if it's too late to do anything. But if knowledge (or our pursuit of it) would lead to new dangers, its perfecly reasonable to (try) to limit knowledge and its spread or pursuit. The dishonesty of the -ve IQ people behind attitudes like the criticized is that they see danger in everything and use moral panic to enforce views. If the actual "dangers" they are freaking out about are legitimate, they would have been justified to supress (non-violently) science and technology)
- indymike 4y ago
  > If you had the option to delay humanity's discovery of atomic bombs to late 20th century or after, and therefore delay any substantial deep understanding of the atomic physics beneath, you would probably do it. The alternative was 20-30 million more dead people via conventional means. There were many teams around the world working to build the bomb. One always wonders about the German team and why they were not first - and I"m glad they were not. > philosophy of science Not sure what that is, but do not want.
  - bsagdiyev 4y ago
    > One always wonders about the German team and why they were not first - and I"m glad they were not. In regards to this, I believe they were on the right path but they were split in to three groups across Germany. They shared the radioactive material and because of this weren't able to achieve fission (?) due to not having enough material in one spot. Thank $diety for that. More info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_weapons_program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_weapons_progr...
  - EntropyIsAHoax 4y ago
    If you don't want philosophy of science, don't comment on an article about the philosophy of science? This isn't some fringe topic for "woke" people, philosophy is fundamental to science and has been from the beginning. It's questions from everything like "what even counts as science" to scientific ethics, to "what is the purpose of science". It's not always about ethics, in fact the 20th century philosophy of science debates were dominated by more practical topics like realism vs instrumentalism. You cannot just dismiss something you've never heard of and have no idea about
  - FabHK 4y ago
    Agreed on the first half of your comment. Philosophy of science, however, is a well established, important, and fascinating field. Keywords: Positivists/Viennese circle, Karl Popper and falsification, Feyerabend and Against Method, Thomas Kuhn and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, W. V. Quine and the Two Dogmas of Empiricism, the Science Wars.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Well, sometimes information can cause harm. For example, revealing a terminal diagnosis to a patient could lead to suicide. I don't think science should be censored, scientific inquiry should continue with integrity regardless of what people think. What I think is people who can't handle it should not have access to the truths revealed. I generally believe in unrestricted free information but I've been rethinking that for certain cases. It's not just gender identity. I've seen similar behavior in other groups such as obese people revolting against the "oppressive" science documenting the numerous risks associated with being overweight because it supposedly causes society to marginalize them.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- justnotworthit 4y ago
  It was common in the middle of the 20th century to not tell a terminally ill patient he/she was dying. We look back at that with horror. In your example, I'd prefer chosing (assisted) suicide or not. Surely you're not doing me a favor by not letting me die how I want.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    In 1972 people with horrific treatable diseases were being lied to, so that science could record exactly how they suffered and died: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study And that's what led to ethics rules that said you can't do that. You'd think you wouldn't need to write it down, but we did and we do. > By then, 28 patients had died directly from syphilis, 100 died from complications related to syphilis, 40 of the patients' wives were infected with syphilis, and 19 children were born with congenital syphilis.[15] > The 40-year Tuskegee Study was a major violation of ethical standards,[13] and has been cited as "arguably the most infamous biomedical research study in U.S. history."[16] Its revelation led to the 1979 Belmont Report and to the establishment of the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP)[17] and federal laws and regulations requiring institutional review boards for the protection of human subjects in studies.

colpabar 4y ago

323 4y ago

Fermi's quote is not acceptable for publication in Nature according to these new guidelines because he centered on the "men" privileged group and excluded "woman, non-binaries, ..." non-privileged groups.

cetahfh14615 4y ago

> ignorance is never better than knowledge this is a moral judgement and a strong claim. I can think of a few types of knowledge off the top of my head that aren't making the world a better place Something like learning how to tie a noose: this is (in most cases) bad knowledge. This isn't something anyone should learn unless they need it for something that isn't its best known purpose when it comes to something like race/gender/etc, I can't think of one positive usage of that kind of knowledge, if we can even call it that. I'd argue that even the idea of race/gender/etc is against the goal of equality and if we want true equality these ideas need to be discarded

colordrops 4y ago
You are conflating knowledge and arbitrarily constructed definitions. My understanding of knowledge is that it is based in some objective ground rather than a changeable definition. Race and gender are social constructs, not objective facts of reality. I agree though, discard social constructs.
donatj 4y ago
The knowledge of how to tie a noose hurts no one. Knowledge in and of itself is harmless at rest. As with all knowledge it’s what you do with it. Keeping people in the dark is an immoral solution to evil.
- cetahfh14615 4y ago
  What knowledge is "in and of itself" means nothing because it exists in a context, the only thing that matters in the case of knowledge (or anything) is what's done with it and how it is useful
- picardythird 4y ago
  And AR-15s hurt no one. Yet they are purposed to have massive killing power against humans, and massively amplify the damage a single ill person can do. Hypothetically there could be some type of weapon that once discovered could end all life on this planet. If that weapon was trivial to build, it would take 1 person with that knowledge to end eveything. Human knowledge is a human construct, and shouldn’t be thought about in absolutes.

BiteCode_dev 4y ago

Also, let's remind the author that quote next time he or she needs surgery: no aenestesia, ignorance is never better than knowledge.