3 ms·

“Joseph Fourier is now famous for the scientific equations that bear his name, but two centuries ago he was prominent in the world of Egyptologists.” In fact,

by Jun8 3y ago

“Joseph Fourier is now famous for the scientific equations that bear his name, but two centuries ago he was prominent in the world of Egyptologists.” In fact, as it’s related, it was at Fourier’s house that Champollion first saw the hieroglyphs as an early teen, and, hearing that no one can read them, decided to dedicate his life to their decipherment. An interesting tangential thought inspired by the article: nowadays it’s common for scientists to be lectured that in addition to truth they also need to consider how their findings will be used; that, if it’s possible that a finding may bolster the wrong argument, maybe it’s better not to undertake that research. I wonder what Champollion thought about this, given how his dating of the artifact supported the religious side that he knew was wrong.

b800h 3y ago
> that, if it’s possible that a finding may bolster the wrong argument, maybe it’s better not to undertake that research Really? That's horrific.
- iamflimflam1 3y ago
  Seems very unlikely to be the case.
- murphyslab 3y ago
  I suspect it is a paraphrase of the Nature (journal portfolio) "research ethics guidance" published in 2022. That guidance claims an ethical imperative to avoid "indirect" causation of "harm". Here is a quote from the editorial announcing the update: > Harms can also arise indirectly, as a result of the publication of a research project or a piece of scholarly communication – for instance, stigmatization of a vulnerable human group or potential use of the results of research for unintended purposes (e.g., public policies that undermine human rights or misuse of information to threaten public health). -- Nature Human Behaviour https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2 Hence, according to the publishers of the Nature journal portfolio, if a finding could be used to support a policy which would cause a negative effect for some "vulnerable human group", or which might cause them to be subject to further stigmatization, then there is a moral imperative to not undertake or to not publish that scientific research. If you are interested in those who have critiqued the editorial and the new guidance, I'd refer you to this post at Heterodox STEM: https://hxstem.substack.com/p/ideological-mandates-in-publishing https://hxstem.substack.com/p/ideological-mandates-in-publis... Alternatively, the editorial staff at Nature offer their endorsement of their own policy here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01607-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01607-0
  - flir 3y ago
    "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? / That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun.
    - matkoniecz 3y ago
      Building rockets for military purposes is quite different from scientific research.
- pjc50 3y ago
  I think this is a distortion between "factually incorrect" and "morally wrong", a reminder to be very careful about results on humans which are going to be used as pro-discrimination arguments.

by Jun8 3y ago

b800h 3y ago

> that, if it’s possible that a finding may bolster the wrong argument, maybe it’s better not to undertake that research Really? That's horrific.

iamflimflam1 3y ago
Seems very unlikely to be the case.
murphyslab 3y ago
I suspect it is a paraphrase of the Nature (journal portfolio) "research ethics guidance" published in 2022. That guidance claims an ethical imperative to avoid "indirect" causation of "harm". Here is a quote from the editorial announcing the update: > Harms can also arise indirectly, as a result of the publication of a research project or a piece of scholarly communication – for instance, stigmatization of a vulnerable human group or potential use of the results of research for unintended purposes (e.g., public policies that undermine human rights or misuse of information to threaten public health). -- Nature Human Behaviour https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2 Hence, according to the publishers of the Nature journal portfolio, if a finding could be used to support a policy which would cause a negative effect for some "vulnerable human group", or which might cause them to be subject to further stigmatization, then there is a moral imperative to not undertake or to not publish that scientific research. If you are interested in those who have critiqued the editorial and the new guidance, I'd refer you to this post at Heterodox STEM: https://hxstem.substack.com/p/ideological-mandates-in-publishing https://hxstem.substack.com/p/ideological-mandates-in-publis... Alternatively, the editorial staff at Nature offer their endorsement of their own policy here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01607-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01607-0
- flir 3y ago
  "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? / That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun.
  - matkoniecz 3y ago
    Building rockets for military purposes is quite different from scientific research.
pjc50 3y ago
I think this is a distortion between "factually incorrect" and "morally wrong", a reminder to be very careful about results on humans which are going to be used as pro-discrimination arguments.