6 ms·

This is exactly the problem. There should be no activism and no causes in science. Each of them implies bias and results in less than ethical practice and unrel

This is exactly the problem. There should be no activism and no causes in science. Each of them implies bias and results in less than ethical practice and unreliable theories. To ask for rationality and the application of the scientific method results in claims of denialism and instant burying of the opinion. That's not acceptable.

Gravityloss 12y ago
I disagree completely. Thought experiment: An astronomer sees a comet approaching earth, that will kill billions. He wants to prevent those deaths. He starts campaigning for methods to prevent that: comet deflection, shelter building, whatever. Seems logical and humane to me.
- debacle 12y ago
  That's engineering, not science.
- badgersandjam 12y ago
  There's a pretty big assumption in there. That the comet is approaching earth and not going to miss it by half a parsec or that the comet is infact a bit of dirt on the lens of the telescope... All of which need testing first before you start waving your hands around and start saying "WE'RE GOING TO FUCKING DIE - RUN!"
  - Gravityloss 12y ago
    We operate in an uncertain world. In many cases it is hard to obtain 99.999% certainties, and we must act with less certainty. Not acting is a choice as well, and everyone bears the responsibility for that too.
    - badgersandjam 12y ago
      Problem is we have about 50% certainty...
      - pyre 12y ago
        Inaction is always easier than action, so which way do you think that people will choose? If we do spend the time, money, and effort to do things like reduce emissions, will we be worse off than we were? Would it not make more sense to use renewable energy resources, and save up the 'easy' sources of energy (oil, coal, etc) for other applications?
        badgersandjam 12y ago
        Entirely agree! But blaming everything on climate suddenly isn't the right answer. Perhaps someone lost a ship load of PCP in the sea and they just snuffed it. And they're trying to hide that. Another hypothesis that could be tested rather than "fuck blame it on climate so we can get some funding and get some nice new Herman Miller chairs and a new MacBook each"
      - Gravityloss 12y ago
        So, if we continue the thought experiment, and say thousands of people have been making observations of the comet for five years and have come to roughly 50% impact probability estimate, with multiple independent methods. And that impact would likely kill maybe a billion people. And you say it is unacceptable for them to advocate doing anything? http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risks/a410777.html http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risks/a410777.html Current impact risks overview is here. 50% chance of a large object would certainly be unprecedented. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1126.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1126.pdf Now, replace the comet watchers with paleoclimate researchers finding out what happened when the planet last time crossed 450 PPM (the other way around).
        badgersandjam 12y ago
        That's not what I'm saying. I can't make it much clearer than: a) suddenly out of the blue, a Ford Transit mutates into a toaster. b) someone is "pretty sure it is related to the impending comet impact". c) Everyone goes YAY SCIENCE!!! Sorry but derision is the only thing left. It's not science, it's religion. a) suddenly out of the blue someone delivers a load of fish. b) Some guy doesn't notice this and goes "pretty fucking sweet; I'm totally wasted on mushrooms and I reckon that bearded dude over there turned that loaf of bread into all those fish. Damn I've got the munchies." c) HE'S THE FUCKING MESSIAH. There is no causality chain established other than a hunch.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Scientists are not magical logic faeries separated from the seething mass of culture by a wall of pure mathematics. Science is intertwined in life. Once you have found that a species is being wiped out, you could stand on the sidelines and measure its decline, watching dispassionately, knowing that you can reach a good solid conclusion about what was killing them when the last dissection is fully documented, or you could chose to interfere and try and prevent the extinction. However, if what is killing them is well funded human activity, you do not have a hope in hell of interfering successfully without getting political.
- badgersandjam 12y ago
  You'd make a good politician because you make a bad human now with all that word twisting.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    I'd make a rubbish politician. I'd end up telling too much of the electorate that I think they are talking utter bollocks. Also, I'm useless at feigning appeasement for the purposes of advancement, so any political career would in all likelihood be extremely brief. However, from a purely Bayesian perspective, based on looking at your other comments, I am rather glad that you say I am a bad human.
  - dang 12y ago
    Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.
    - spainispain 12y ago
      Let's see if it's true, Mr. Torquemada. :-P
pyre 12y ago
The "problem" is that even with the science pointing in a particular direction, if monied interests don't like that direction, they turn it into a political issue with FUD (personal attacks on the scientists rather than the science, stirring up the "science is an affront to God" crowd, etc).

Gravityloss 12y ago

I disagree completely. Thought experiment: An astronomer sees a comet approaching earth, that will kill billions. He wants to prevent those deaths. He starts campaigning for methods to prevent that: comet deflection, shelter building, whatever. Seems logical and humane to me.

debacle 12y ago
That's engineering, not science.
badgersandjam 12y ago
There's a pretty big assumption in there. That the comet is approaching earth and not going to miss it by half a parsec or that the comet is infact a bit of dirt on the lens of the telescope... All of which need testing first before you start waving your hands around and start saying "WE'RE GOING TO FUCKING DIE - RUN!"
- Gravityloss 12y ago
  We operate in an uncertain world. In many cases it is hard to obtain 99.999% certainties, and we must act with less certainty. Not acting is a choice as well, and everyone bears the responsibility for that too.
  - badgersandjam 12y ago
    Problem is we have about 50% certainty...
    - pyre 12y ago
      Inaction is always easier than action, so which way do you think that people will choose? If we do spend the time, money, and effort to do things like reduce emissions, will we be worse off than we were? Would it not make more sense to use renewable energy resources, and save up the 'easy' sources of energy (oil, coal, etc) for other applications?
      - badgersandjam 12y ago
        Entirely agree! But blaming everything on climate suddenly isn't the right answer. Perhaps someone lost a ship load of PCP in the sea and they just snuffed it. And they're trying to hide that. Another hypothesis that could be tested rather than "fuck blame it on climate so we can get some funding and get some nice new Herman Miller chairs and a new MacBook each"
    - Gravityloss 12y ago
      So, if we continue the thought experiment, and say thousands of people have been making observations of the comet for five years and have come to roughly 50% impact probability estimate, with multiple independent methods. And that impact would likely kill maybe a billion people. And you say it is unacceptable for them to advocate doing anything? http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risks/a410777.html http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risks/a410777.html Current impact risks overview is here. 50% chance of a large object would certainly be unprecedented. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1126.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1126.pdf Now, replace the comet watchers with paleoclimate researchers finding out what happened when the planet last time crossed 450 PPM (the other way around).
      - badgersandjam 12y ago
        That's not what I'm saying. I can't make it much clearer than: a) suddenly out of the blue, a Ford Transit mutates into a toaster. b) someone is "pretty sure it is related to the impending comet impact". c) Everyone goes YAY SCIENCE!!! Sorry but derision is the only thing left. It's not science, it's religion. a) suddenly out of the blue someone delivers a load of fish. b) Some guy doesn't notice this and goes "pretty fucking sweet; I'm totally wasted on mushrooms and I reckon that bearded dude over there turned that loaf of bread into all those fish. Damn I've got the munchies." c) HE'S THE FUCKING MESSIAH. There is no causality chain established other than a hunch.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

lotsofmangos 12y ago

Scientists are not magical logic faeries separated from the seething mass of culture by a wall of pure mathematics. Science is intertwined in life. Once you have found that a species is being wiped out, you could stand on the sidelines and measure its decline, watching dispassionately, knowing that you can reach a good solid conclusion about what was killing them when the last dissection is fully documented, or you could chose to interfere and try and prevent the extinction. However, if what is killing them is well funded human activity, you do not have a hope in hell of interfering successfully without getting political.

badgersandjam 12y ago
You'd make a good politician because you make a bad human now with all that word twisting.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  I'd make a rubbish politician. I'd end up telling too much of the electorate that I think they are talking utter bollocks. Also, I'm useless at feigning appeasement for the purposes of advancement, so any political career would in all likelihood be extremely brief. However, from a purely Bayesian perspective, based on looking at your other comments, I am rather glad that you say I am a bad human.
- dang 12y ago
  Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.
  - spainispain 12y ago
    Let's see if it's true, Mr. Torquemada. :-P

pyre 12y ago

The "problem" is that even with the science pointing in a particular direction, if monied interests don't like that direction, they turn it into a political issue with FUD (personal attacks on the scientists rather than the science, stirring up the "science is an affront to God" crowd, etc).