4 ms·

If sexist statements are simply a matter of opinion than there probably really aren't any at all by some measure or the other.... I believe scientists (aka peo

by jqm 12y ago

If sexist statements are simply a matter of opinion than there probably really aren't any at all by some measure or the other.... I believe scientists (aka people who have taken the time to study and learn) should do science. Not anyone with a diverse opinion. There is plenty of room for guidance at the funding and application levels. Which, btw, also require some knowledge and qualification besides being a third rate hack writer who makes sexist statements.... Uninformed opinions are cheap. Knowledge and good thinking skills are rare.

ZenoArrow 12y ago
"If sexist statements are simply a matter of opinion than there probably really aren't any at all by some measure or the other...." In subjective matters, the interpretation of written statements in this case, there is room for shades of grey. So yes, even if you are convinced something is how you see it, does not mean everyone will agree. Let me put it like this, if a female makes a negative statement about a group, and points out that this group is overwhelmingly male, does the gender automatically become the focus, or is it merely an observation about a group, and it is the group which is being placed under scrutiny? If I say I work with a group of geeky men that are clever, is the gender really the most important part of that statement to you? "I believe scientists (aka people who have taken the time to study and learn) should do science." Did I say anything different to that? "Not anyone with a diverse opinion. There is plenty of room for guidance at the funding and application levels." Application level is after the horse has bolted. To use an obvious example, you can't prove that we know how to build an atomic bomb and then not expect negative consequences, regardless of how interesting the science was the scientists involved still needed to take responsibility for their part in it (which at least some of them did). Funding level is part of the corrupting influence I mentioned before. Science exists to serve us, it's how we explore the systems of the world we live in, but not all science serves us, and until we recognise that and ethically guide our research we're setting ourselves up for huge catastrophes.
- jqm 12y ago
  So you think certain areas just shouldn't be studied? And that there should be a diverse (aka non-experts) panel to decide what scientists can research... for the good of humanity? How often liberal arts college propaganda seems to talk itself right back around into something resembling medieval theology. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on perspective I guess) it seems to never be quite competent enough to achieve it's objectives.... For the record, I believe in environmental concerns. I believe in social and economic justice. I look at history and see these best being addressed by science. Not "me too even though I haven't really taken the time to study the issue" opinions.
  - ZenoArrow 12y ago
    "So you think certain areas just shouldn't be studied?" Yes, I think some areas just shouldn't be studied. Yes, I know this goes against the commonly held beliefs that science should be a free-for-all, consequences be damned. A useful comparison may be with the medical profession, which since its early days has placed ethics at the core of what it does, such as with the Hippocratic Oath (along with its modernising revisions). Doctors have a responsibility to the patient first, and expanding their expertise second. With science as it stands today, the opposite is true. The priority is expanding expertise, even if its clear that damage will be done. I'd like research to be as free as possible, just within certain ethical bounds. Aside from weaponry, most of what we're doing today in science is child's play compared to what's coming soon. So that we can expand this discussion, tell me what you know about synthetic biology.
    - jqm 12y ago
      How something is researched is a different topic than what is being researched. Lack of ethics or disregard for the safety of research subjects (Nazi experiments come to mind...) is not what I'm in favor of (and I doubt hardly anybody else is either). A researcher shouldn't be able to dump a tanker of oil in the ocean to "find out what happens"..... But saying "this topic is off limits and can not be inquired into by any means" is #1)realistically not going to happen at this point. #2)not provably desirable for humanity. #3)full of potential for political and economic abuse. Yes, things are going to change a lot and soon (re. synthetic biology... I majored in a biological science. Genetics, bio-chem, advanced biology etc. 20 years ago. I entered a different field. I don't claim to know much, but to your point, I think I do know what's coming). Yes, there will be tragedies (but also amazing benefits). Yes, people need to be as careful as they can, and they need monitoring. Yes, application of technology needs regulation. But attempting to force ignorance simply isn't a good idea, nor is it going to work. The likely outcome of that approach is application of more uninformed versions of technologies entailing more risk to everyone. The genie is not going back in the bottle. So we need to do our best to understand mechanism and outcomes, and thus tip the risk/reward ratio in a positive direction. My grandfather was an engineer in Los Alamos working on nuclear destruction devices. He died in his late 40's from cancer. I never met him. So I understand your point. But where I think we differ... I don't think they should have stopped nuclear research. I think they should have done more in fact and I still do. What I don't think they should have done was use that technology, half understood, with no long term plan for waste disposal, largely to build destructive devices. It's not research and understanding that kills us, but the reverse.

by jqm 12y ago

ZenoArrow 12y ago

"If sexist statements are simply a matter of opinion than there probably really aren't any at all by some measure or the other...." In subjective matters, the interpretation of written statements in this case, there is room for shades of grey. So yes, even if you are convinced something is how you see it, does not mean everyone will agree. Let me put it like this, if a female makes a negative statement about a group, and points out that this group is overwhelmingly male, does the gender automatically become the focus, or is it merely an observation about a group, and it is the group which is being placed under scrutiny? If I say I work with a group of geeky men that are clever, is the gender really the most important part of that statement to you? "I believe scientists (aka people who have taken the time to study and learn) should do science." Did I say anything different to that? "Not anyone with a diverse opinion. There is plenty of room for guidance at the funding and application levels." Application level is after the horse has bolted. To use an obvious example, you can't prove that we know how to build an atomic bomb and then not expect negative consequences, regardless of how interesting the science was the scientists involved still needed to take responsibility for their part in it (which at least some of them did). Funding level is part of the corrupting influence I mentioned before. Science exists to serve us, it's how we explore the systems of the world we live in, but not all science serves us, and until we recognise that and ethically guide our research we're setting ourselves up for huge catastrophes.

jqm 12y ago
So you think certain areas just shouldn't be studied? And that there should be a diverse (aka non-experts) panel to decide what scientists can research... for the good of humanity? How often liberal arts college propaganda seems to talk itself right back around into something resembling medieval theology. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on perspective I guess) it seems to never be quite competent enough to achieve it's objectives.... For the record, I believe in environmental concerns. I believe in social and economic justice. I look at history and see these best being addressed by science. Not "me too even though I haven't really taken the time to study the issue" opinions.
- ZenoArrow 12y ago
  "So you think certain areas just shouldn't be studied?" Yes, I think some areas just shouldn't be studied. Yes, I know this goes against the commonly held beliefs that science should be a free-for-all, consequences be damned. A useful comparison may be with the medical profession, which since its early days has placed ethics at the core of what it does, such as with the Hippocratic Oath (along with its modernising revisions). Doctors have a responsibility to the patient first, and expanding their expertise second. With science as it stands today, the opposite is true. The priority is expanding expertise, even if its clear that damage will be done. I'd like research to be as free as possible, just within certain ethical bounds. Aside from weaponry, most of what we're doing today in science is child's play compared to what's coming soon. So that we can expand this discussion, tell me what you know about synthetic biology.
  - jqm 12y ago
    How something is researched is a different topic than what is being researched. Lack of ethics or disregard for the safety of research subjects (Nazi experiments come to mind...) is not what I'm in favor of (and I doubt hardly anybody else is either). A researcher shouldn't be able to dump a tanker of oil in the ocean to "find out what happens"..... But saying "this topic is off limits and can not be inquired into by any means" is #1)realistically not going to happen at this point. #2)not provably desirable for humanity. #3)full of potential for political and economic abuse. Yes, things are going to change a lot and soon (re. synthetic biology... I majored in a biological science. Genetics, bio-chem, advanced biology etc. 20 years ago. I entered a different field. I don't claim to know much, but to your point, I think I do know what's coming). Yes, there will be tragedies (but also amazing benefits). Yes, people need to be as careful as they can, and they need monitoring. Yes, application of technology needs regulation. But attempting to force ignorance simply isn't a good idea, nor is it going to work. The likely outcome of that approach is application of more uninformed versions of technologies entailing more risk to everyone. The genie is not going back in the bottle. So we need to do our best to understand mechanism and outcomes, and thus tip the risk/reward ratio in a positive direction. My grandfather was an engineer in Los Alamos working on nuclear destruction devices. He died in his late 40's from cancer. I never met him. So I understand your point. But where I think we differ... I don't think they should have stopped nuclear research. I think they should have done more in fact and I still do. What I don't think they should have done was use that technology, half understood, with no long term plan for waste disposal, largely to build destructive devices. It's not research and understanding that kills us, but the reverse.