10 ms·

Undoubtably a deep philosophical argument, but brighter minds than ours have written at length about it both in science and jurisprudence. "Research ethics" and

Undoubtably a deep philosophical argument, but brighter minds than ours have written at length about it both in science and jurisprudence. "Research ethics" and "Exclusionary rule" would be good illustrating Wikipedia articles.

arethuza 11y ago
Out of interest, what are these political views that are so terrible that they should influence our views of his thoughts on operating system design? Edit: I really don't have any idea what they are...
- philh 11y ago
  Among other unpopular opinions, ESR denies AGW, believes that race and IQ are correlated, and was strongly in favor of the Iraq war.
  - harkyns_castle 11y ago
    That's a surprise to me, I hadn't heard any of that. Not that I've followed things that closely. What I found so far is [1], in which he seems to just be doing a bit of a "show me the data" thing wrt global warming (its fairly old I guess in defense). In [2] he's definitely saying IQ is race-related, and gender related to a lesser extent, in my quick readings. I quite like that he doesn't mince his words, sugar coat things or seem to take any notice of popular opinion/political correctness. Not agreeing with him, but I find that refreshing. [1] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1436 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1436 [2] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?m=200311 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?m=200311
    - laichzeit0 11y ago
      Regarding [2]. So I guess this quote is the problem: > And the part that, if you are a decent human being and not a racist bigot, you have been dreading: American blacks average a standard deviation lower in IQ than American whites at about 85. [...] And yes, it’s genetic; g seems to be about 85% heritable, and recent studies of effects like regression towards the mean suggest strongly that most of the heritability is DNA rather than nurturance effects. So is the problem with him saying this that (a) this is factually false or (b) that it's an inconvenient fact that should be glossed over? He seems to be saying that it's factually true since he obviously read it in some or other study. If it is factually true it's disingenuous to label him as a racist.
      - harkyns_castle 11y ago
        I think the problem is, its a bit more complicated than that. There are a myriad of factors that might influence that IQ score, and I haven't looked at the studies. Lack of wealth/opportunity I think is definitely a factor in the healthy development of the grey matter, as is access to good education. Long/short, not sure. I'd be surprised if the colour of your skin objectively made a difference in IQ. Same with gender. Though, if the latter is true, I would probably use it with great exuberance on certain people I know e.g. my ex.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
        I wouldn't be surprised if skin colour made a difference to IQ. But I wouldn't be surprised for social and political reasons, not genetic ones. It's actually not possible to make a genetic argument, because genetically there are no non-trivial markers that robustly correlate with "black" or "white." http://web.mit.edu/racescience/in_media/what_dna_says_about_human/ http://web.mit.edu/racescience/in_media/what_dna_says_about_... Suggesting otherwise is simple ignorant bigotry.
      - cousin_it 11y ago
        I guess everyone and every group finds certain truths uncomfortable. It's especially sad that the theory of evolution seems to make literally everyone uncomfortable. "Of course humans and chimps have a common ancestor! We have looked at the genetic code, and found that more than 95% is shared. Give up, it's over." The right will hate you for saying that. "Of course there is inherited variation in intelligence, no matter how you define it! Otherwise evolution, in particular evolution of intelligence, could not possibly work. Give up, it's over." The left will hate you for saying that. "Of course our moral intuitions come from game theory, not apriori reasoning!" And now everyone hates you, both the left and the right.
        oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
  - colechristensen 11y ago
    Is that really it?
    - peteretep 11y ago
      It's unclear whether you're suggesting his views are not sufficiently objectionable, or you're suggesting he has other views that are very objectionable that weren't enumerated above.
      - colechristensen 11y ago
        > ESR denies AGW, believes that race and IQ are correlated, and was strongly in favor of the Iraq war The first two are healthy amounts of scientific doubt and the third is a political opinion. (Though it could be highly dependent on how these views are expressed.) I was expecting hate speech or Nazism, instead I see overreactions to opposing opinions people confuse with moral failings.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    None of these seem even remotely relevant to engineering. Moreover, research, discovery and innovation requires letting people having freedom to think. That includes holding unpopular, controversial or politically incorrect opinions. We are so worried about Evil Government dictating what we can and cannot think that we haven't noticed the current organic trend to prosecute every other person for thoughtcrimes. It's not the jackboot that keeps us on the ground, it's social media, and the public outrage you get when you disagree with whatever's the most popular opinion on a topic this week.
    - the_ancient 11y ago
      You have the freedom to think........ what the hive mind whats you to think.
    - dredmorbius 11y ago
      ESR's views particularly on guns, libertarian economics and politics, and AGW, all present pretty standard cases of assuming a frame and fitting all data to that frame. Chopping, discarding, and/or fabricating data as necessary to do so. That actually directly calls into question engineering validity, as solid engineering is solidly based in reality and a realistic interpretation of facts. Also the ability to discard frames which no longer fit. My own work and research of the past several years puts a very high significance on both frames (or more generally, models), and on the psychology of interacting with those, with strong emphasis on denial in various forms. ESR's political views call much of his work into question. I say that as someone who was strongly influenced by much of what he said, and enjoyed a fair bit of it. He's become a tremendous disappointment. TAOUP has its merits. It's rather like recommending Ted Kaczynski's Manifesto a a social-technological critique. It's got some really solid points (see what Bill Joy's had to say on it: http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html). But damned if the rest of the author's views and actions don't muddy the waters a tad.
      - phlakaton 11y ago
        You say you distrust the author's views and opinions because of his politics. I say: good! You should never take an author's work at face value. Every bit of nonfiction you read should be read critically. Nobody's judgment is infallible – not even Nobel prizewinners.
  - d_theorist 11y ago
    The first two are scientific, rather than political questions, aren't they?
    - philh 11y ago
      Political in the sense that they have been politicized. And in the sense that a lot of people seem to believe the questions are Settled For Good, and anyone who disagrees with them is Just Plain Ignorant and/or Lying For Personal Benefit.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      They are scientific questions if ESR publishes or attempts to publish scientific papers to support his opinions, or otherwise attempts to represent himself as a scientist.
- oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
  He's pro 'gun-rights'.
  - Haul4ss 11y ago
    What's wrong with this? Being completely serious here, what is wrong with citizens owning firearms? I am all about reducing gun violence, but if you want to do that you have to do something to stem the tide of illegally acquired handguns in areas of concentrated poverty. That's where a lot of your gun violence comes from. The recent happenings in Charleston are unicorns. Unpredictable and very rare events that you can't actually make a special law for, without the G-men physically going to every household in America and confiscating firearms. That is a policy I assure you you don't actually want.
    - saw-lau 11y ago
      http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131 http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-...
      - Haul4ss 11y ago
        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/copenhagen-cafe-attack-free-speech-event/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/copenhagen-cafe-attack-free-spee... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
        tom_morrow 11y ago
        so you are saying there is a correlation between guns-per-capita and gun-deaths-per-capita?
        Haul4ss 11y ago
        No, I'm (foolishly) responding to an Onion article of all things. The claim is being made that the U.S. is the only place where mass killings with firearms happen. I'm merely stating this isn't true.
philh 11y ago
Those seem only tenuously linked to me. Research ethics forbids you from doing certain things when performing research, but it doesn't say anything about the political opinions of researchers. The exclusionary rule says that if evidence is obtained by breaking the rules, it can't be used in court. But again, it doesn't say anything about the political opinions of the person obtaining the evidence.
- peteretep 11y ago
  Both are cases where the truth of the situation is put aside from a moral standpoint, which is analogous to suggesting that someone's political views could influence the reception of their engineering views.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Both exist mostly to disincentivize people from doing something immoral and/or unwanted, not to give light on the truth or false value of observations/evidence. So the question is, should one really refuse to read/recommend ESR's book because of his opinions? Frankly, this smells to me like Index Librorum Prohibitorum all over again.
    - oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
      Unfortunately, you can't neatly compartmentalise one aspect of an individual's life and totally separate it from the others. Sometimes, the aspects with which you happen to agree might be used to indirectly (even invisibly) support the aspects you don't. Although it's difficult to judge that, it seems a reasonable condition for exercising caution. I say this as a huge fan of TAOUP.

arethuza 11y ago

Out of interest, what are these political views that are so terrible that they should influence our views of his thoughts on operating system design? Edit: I really don't have any idea what they are...

philh 11y ago
Among other unpopular opinions, ESR denies AGW, believes that race and IQ are correlated, and was strongly in favor of the Iraq war.
- harkyns_castle 11y ago
  That's a surprise to me, I hadn't heard any of that. Not that I've followed things that closely. What I found so far is [1], in which he seems to just be doing a bit of a "show me the data" thing wrt global warming (its fairly old I guess in defense). In [2] he's definitely saying IQ is race-related, and gender related to a lesser extent, in my quick readings. I quite like that he doesn't mince his words, sugar coat things or seem to take any notice of popular opinion/political correctness. Not agreeing with him, but I find that refreshing. [1] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1436 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1436 [2] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?m=200311 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?m=200311
  - laichzeit0 11y ago
    Regarding [2]. So I guess this quote is the problem: > And the part that, if you are a decent human being and not a racist bigot, you have been dreading: American blacks average a standard deviation lower in IQ than American whites at about 85. [...] And yes, it’s genetic; g seems to be about 85% heritable, and recent studies of effects like regression towards the mean suggest strongly that most of the heritability is DNA rather than nurturance effects. So is the problem with him saying this that (a) this is factually false or (b) that it's an inconvenient fact that should be glossed over? He seems to be saying that it's factually true since he obviously read it in some or other study. If it is factually true it's disingenuous to label him as a racist.
    - harkyns_castle 11y ago
      I think the problem is, its a bit more complicated than that. There are a myriad of factors that might influence that IQ score, and I haven't looked at the studies. Lack of wealth/opportunity I think is definitely a factor in the healthy development of the grey matter, as is access to good education. Long/short, not sure. I'd be surprised if the colour of your skin objectively made a difference in IQ. Same with gender. Though, if the latter is true, I would probably use it with great exuberance on certain people I know e.g. my ex.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
        I wouldn't be surprised if skin colour made a difference to IQ. But I wouldn't be surprised for social and political reasons, not genetic ones. It's actually not possible to make a genetic argument, because genetically there are no non-trivial markers that robustly correlate with "black" or "white." http://web.mit.edu/racescience/in_media/what_dna_says_about_human/ http://web.mit.edu/racescience/in_media/what_dna_says_about_... Suggesting otherwise is simple ignorant bigotry.
    - cousin_it 11y ago
      I guess everyone and every group finds certain truths uncomfortable. It's especially sad that the theory of evolution seems to make literally everyone uncomfortable. "Of course humans and chimps have a common ancestor! We have looked at the genetic code, and found that more than 95% is shared. Give up, it's over." The right will hate you for saying that. "Of course there is inherited variation in intelligence, no matter how you define it! Otherwise evolution, in particular evolution of intelligence, could not possibly work. Give up, it's over." The left will hate you for saying that. "Of course our moral intuitions come from game theory, not apriori reasoning!" And now everyone hates you, both the left and the right.
      - oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
- colechristensen 11y ago
  Is that really it?
  - peteretep 11y ago
    It's unclear whether you're suggesting his views are not sufficiently objectionable, or you're suggesting he has other views that are very objectionable that weren't enumerated above.
    - colechristensen 11y ago
      > ESR denies AGW, believes that race and IQ are correlated, and was strongly in favor of the Iraq war The first two are healthy amounts of scientific doubt and the third is a political opinion. (Though it could be highly dependent on how these views are expressed.) I was expecting hate speech or Nazism, instead I see overreactions to opposing opinions people confuse with moral failings.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  None of these seem even remotely relevant to engineering. Moreover, research, discovery and innovation requires letting people having freedom to think. That includes holding unpopular, controversial or politically incorrect opinions. We are so worried about Evil Government dictating what we can and cannot think that we haven't noticed the current organic trend to prosecute every other person for thoughtcrimes. It's not the jackboot that keeps us on the ground, it's social media, and the public outrage you get when you disagree with whatever's the most popular opinion on a topic this week.
  - the_ancient 11y ago
    You have the freedom to think........ what the hive mind whats you to think.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    ESR's views particularly on guns, libertarian economics and politics, and AGW, all present pretty standard cases of assuming a frame and fitting all data to that frame. Chopping, discarding, and/or fabricating data as necessary to do so. That actually directly calls into question engineering validity, as solid engineering is solidly based in reality and a realistic interpretation of facts. Also the ability to discard frames which no longer fit. My own work and research of the past several years puts a very high significance on both frames (or more generally, models), and on the psychology of interacting with those, with strong emphasis on denial in various forms. ESR's political views call much of his work into question. I say that as someone who was strongly influenced by much of what he said, and enjoyed a fair bit of it. He's become a tremendous disappointment. TAOUP has its merits. It's rather like recommending Ted Kaczynski's Manifesto a a social-technological critique. It's got some really solid points (see what Bill Joy's had to say on it: http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html). But damned if the rest of the author's views and actions don't muddy the waters a tad.
    - phlakaton 11y ago
      You say you distrust the author's views and opinions because of his politics. I say: good! You should never take an author's work at face value. Every bit of nonfiction you read should be read critically. Nobody's judgment is infallible – not even Nobel prizewinners.
- d_theorist 11y ago
  The first two are scientific, rather than political questions, aren't they?
  - philh 11y ago
    Political in the sense that they have been politicized. And in the sense that a lot of people seem to believe the questions are Settled For Good, and anyone who disagrees with them is Just Plain Ignorant and/or Lying For Personal Benefit.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    They are scientific questions if ESR publishes or attempts to publish scientific papers to support his opinions, or otherwise attempts to represent himself as a scientist.
oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
He's pro 'gun-rights'.
- Haul4ss 11y ago
  What's wrong with this? Being completely serious here, what is wrong with citizens owning firearms? I am all about reducing gun violence, but if you want to do that you have to do something to stem the tide of illegally acquired handguns in areas of concentrated poverty. That's where a lot of your gun violence comes from. The recent happenings in Charleston are unicorns. Unpredictable and very rare events that you can't actually make a special law for, without the G-men physically going to every household in America and confiscating firearms. That is a policy I assure you you don't actually want.
  - saw-lau 11y ago
    http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131 http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-...
    - Haul4ss 11y ago
      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/copenhagen-cafe-attack-free-speech-event/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/copenhagen-cafe-attack-free-spee... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
      - tom_morrow 11y ago
        so you are saying there is a correlation between guns-per-capita and gun-deaths-per-capita?
        Haul4ss 11y ago
        No, I'm (foolishly) responding to an Onion article of all things. The claim is being made that the U.S. is the only place where mass killings with firearms happen. I'm merely stating this isn't true.

philh 11y ago

Those seem only tenuously linked to me. Research ethics forbids you from doing certain things when performing research, but it doesn't say anything about the political opinions of researchers. The exclusionary rule says that if evidence is obtained by breaking the rules, it can't be used in court. But again, it doesn't say anything about the political opinions of the person obtaining the evidence.

peteretep 11y ago
Both are cases where the truth of the situation is put aside from a moral standpoint, which is analogous to suggesting that someone's political views could influence the reception of their engineering views.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Both exist mostly to disincentivize people from doing something immoral and/or unwanted, not to give light on the truth or false value of observations/evidence. So the question is, should one really refuse to read/recommend ESR's book because of his opinions? Frankly, this smells to me like Index Librorum Prohibitorum all over again.
  - oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
    Unfortunately, you can't neatly compartmentalise one aspect of an individual's life and totally separate it from the others. Sometimes, the aspects with which you happen to agree might be used to indirectly (even invisibly) support the aspects you don't. Although it's difficult to judge that, it seems a reasonable condition for exercising caution. I say this as a huge fan of TAOUP.