5 ms·

- is it desirable for science be beneficial to people? - if so, doesn't that judgement need to be made? - in respect to whether or not to publish a paper or art

by jmull 4y ago

- is it desirable for science be beneficial to people? - if so, doesn't that judgement need to be made? - in respect to whether or not to publish a paper or article, who should make the judgement as to whether the science is beneficial or not, if not the publisher? I think if you're going to object to this, you need to do so on the substance of the guidelines. Otherwise you're just substituting your own editorial judgement for that of the publisher, in effect claiming the authority of what is fit to publish for yourself.

brushfoot 4y ago
> - is it desirable for science be beneficial to people? No. This is like asking whether language is beneficial. It can be. And it can be harmful in the wrong hands. It can be used to inspire altruism or to promote genocide. Its benefit or harm depends on its use. Even the same word, "no," can be used positively or negatively. That isn't an argument against its availability, let alone its existence. - if so, doesn't that judgement need to be made? Yes, by those who decide what to do about it: philosophers, politicians, clergy, businesspeople, the public at large. > in respect to whether or not to publish a paper or article, who should make the judgement as to whether the science is beneficial or not, if not the publisher? No one should, least of all the publisher. Take research about suicidal ideation among trans people. Should it be suppressed because it might appear to suggest that trans people are weak, or should it be promoted because it reveals structural inequality and systems of oppression? Those are political, social, philosophical questions that should have no bearing on publication.
- jmull 4y ago
  >> - is it desirable for science be beneficial to people? > No. This is like asking whether language is beneficial… I don’t think you really answered my question. The question is just whether we want science to be beneficial, before any questions about how or whether that could be achieved.

by jmull 4y ago

brushfoot 4y ago

> - is it desirable for science be beneficial to people? No. This is like asking whether language is beneficial. It can be. And it can be harmful in the wrong hands. It can be used to inspire altruism or to promote genocide. Its benefit or harm depends on its use. Even the same word, "no," can be used positively or negatively. That isn't an argument against its availability, let alone its existence. - if so, doesn't that judgement need to be made? Yes, by those who decide what to do about it: philosophers, politicians, clergy, businesspeople, the public at large. > in respect to whether or not to publish a paper or article, who should make the judgement as to whether the science is beneficial or not, if not the publisher? No one should, least of all the publisher. Take research about suicidal ideation among trans people. Should it be suppressed because it might appear to suggest that trans people are weak, or should it be promoted because it reveals structural inequality and systems of oppression? Those are political, social, philosophical questions that should have no bearing on publication.

jmull 4y ago
>> - is it desirable for science be beneficial to people? > No. This is like asking whether language is beneficial… I don’t think you really answered my question. The question is just whether we want science to be beneficial, before any questions about how or whether that could be achieved.