7 ms·

It's interesting that the linked policy says almost the exact opposite of Fermi's statement, implying that ignorance is sometimes better than knowledge: "...con

by 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.

by AlanYx 4y ago

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.