4 ms·
I did try to read it in good faith and give it the benefit of the doubt, but there's about 20 red flags in the article. With the ultimate smoking gun "to consul
by fleddr 4y ago
I did try to read it in good faith and give it the benefit of the doubt, but there's about 20 red flags in the article. With the ultimate smoking gun "to consult with advocacy" groups.
Advocacy groups as gatekeepers for scientific publication. It's impossible to get a more biased, emotional and fatalistic view on science.
The next articles on the website:
"Marginalized" people struggling to attend conferences (due to Visa issues)".
"Equity in the workplace."
"Cultural diversity is crucial for African neuroethics"
"Historical trauma compounds experiences of racial injustice"
It's like a Tumblr blog. You can't ever meet the moral "purity" of such staff, so I predict serious scientists go elsewhere, and a game of oppression Olympics begins, as oppression is power.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kromem 4y agoPre-biasing results isn't science, it's propaganda. I'm all about getting behind the idea that how we extrapolate and apply scientific discoveries and progress should be mindful of basic human rights and decency for all. But the idea that the scientific findings themselves should be scoped to a specific perspective in order to disseminate is backwards hogwash as empty of scientific merit as the Church telling Galileo to rework his calculations to put Earth back in the center of the solar system. It seems like we're no longer as a society making the case for the underlying pragmatism of equality (a trivial case to make) and are instead spending undue resources babysitting the idea as if it can't stand on its own or else it might hurt itself in its confusion.