I’m very aware of the history of race science. Tell me what that has to do with physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, and exactly why we should “require many barriers to science” today because the already thoroughly refuted race science existed? Because that is what the other commenter stated.
Race science is just an example of how academic science hasn’t always acted responsibly. research should and is subject to ethical considerations and responsible inovation meaning that science should be done in the public interest
it would be science to create a new hyper infectious strain of smallpox and there should be barriers to stop someone doing that
There are ethical barriers to stop those kind of things. Militaries are going to ignore those ethical considerations, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. There was tremendous outcry when irresponsible researchers in China genetically modified fetuses in hopes of making them immune to HIV, without any consideration for the ethics of the situation.
Is academic ethics perfect? Of course not. But it exists and I don’t see any proposals for a better system.
It’s not different from the abortion debate. Abortion is already regulated quite well by medical ethics. Will that prevent 100% of morally reprehensible situations from occurring? Of course not. But that does not mean we need additional legal regulation (which wouldn’t prevent, but only punish anyway.)
There is already effort to improve the racist, sexist barriers to performing academic science and to call out questionable science (particularly medical science, which is probably the worst offender for perpetuating racist and sexist science right now). Those efforts are precisely why we’re seeing such a backlash from the white supremacists these days. Just look at what they’re targeting - critical race theory and intersectional feminism. Those are academic corrections to academic problems.
You’re conjuring up a false exaggerated position no one here took (“require many barriers to science”) and making dubious excuses for “shitty” science under pretense of “release all the science, shitty/false or otherwise” idealism.
EDIT: Fine. You quoted one person. That doesn’t justify making dubious excuses for “shitty” science under pretense of “release all the science, shitty/false or otherwise” idealism.
That’s a literal word for word quote from the comment I was originally replying to. I didn’t exaggerate anything.
Is someone still publishing caliper head measurements in 2023 that you’re aware of? No. Just like no one is publishing flat earth “studies” even though some idiot members of the public think that’s fun right now. And no one is publishing about the aether. Who is the arbiter of what compromises junk science, if not the scientific community? The founder of SciHub is a communist. Release all the science.
Are you doing a blowhard long winded workaround way of calipers-free-but-still-racist “shitty” science under pious pretenses of it still being scientific enough to get attention?
Who is the arbiter of what compromises junk science, if not the scientific community?
Release all the science.
It’s clearly a losing battle within that community if you’re making excuses for “shitty” science getting attention that it both doesn’t deserve and that will actually harm people.
No more than you’re suggesting that there are racist astronomy studies being published, even though I could choose to disingenuously represent your position with that statement.
Racist studies need to be refuted. It’s not that hard. Restricting access to all science (which I see you now notice is what that other commenter was suggesting) isn’t going to magically stop racist studies from being published.
And again, who are you suggesting should be the arbiter?
That arbiter is not doing a good job considering the proliferation of antivax, race “science,” and climate change denialism, among other things.
Feel as above the fray as you like, but normalizing the mass distribution of junk/shit or otherwise false science under some lofty ideal of “the free marketplace of ideas will select for the correct data” is clearly, demonstratively, and repeatedly not doing that and hasn’t in the past either.
Cut the bullshit and just tell us how badly you enjoy calipers and racism masquerading as science.
I’m very aware of the history of race science. Tell me what that has to do with physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, and exactly why we should “require many barriers to science” today because the already thoroughly refuted race science existed? Because that is what the other commenter stated.
Race science is just an example of how academic science hasn’t always acted responsibly. research should and is subject to ethical considerations and responsible inovation meaning that science should be done in the public interest
it would be science to create a new hyper infectious strain of smallpox and there should be barriers to stop someone doing that
There are ethical barriers to stop those kind of things. Militaries are going to ignore those ethical considerations, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. There was tremendous outcry when irresponsible researchers in China genetically modified fetuses in hopes of making them immune to HIV, without any consideration for the ethics of the situation.
Is academic ethics perfect? Of course not. But it exists and I don’t see any proposals for a better system.
It’s not different from the abortion debate. Abortion is already regulated quite well by medical ethics. Will that prevent 100% of morally reprehensible situations from occurring? Of course not. But that does not mean we need additional legal regulation (which wouldn’t prevent, but only punish anyway.)
There is already effort to improve the racist, sexist barriers to performing academic science and to call out questionable science (particularly medical science, which is probably the worst offender for perpetuating racist and sexist science right now). Those efforts are precisely why we’re seeing such a backlash from the white supremacists these days. Just look at what they’re targeting - critical race theory and intersectional feminism. Those are academic corrections to academic problems.
I know there are barriers to unethical research I am in favour of those barriers.
You’re conjuring up a false exaggerated position no one here took (“require many barriers to science”) and making dubious excuses for “shitty” science under pretense of “release all the science, shitty/false or otherwise” idealism.
EDIT: Fine. You quoted one person. That doesn’t justify making dubious excuses for “shitty” science under pretense of “release all the science, shitty/false or otherwise” idealism.
That’s a literal word for word quote from the comment I was originally replying to. I didn’t exaggerate anything.
Is someone still publishing caliper head measurements in 2023 that you’re aware of? No. Just like no one is publishing flat earth “studies” even though some idiot members of the public think that’s fun right now. And no one is publishing about the aether. Who is the arbiter of what compromises junk science, if not the scientific community? The founder of SciHub is a communist. Release all the science.
Are you doing a blowhard long winded workaround way of calipers-free-but-still-racist “shitty” science under pious pretenses of it still being scientific enough to get attention?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdyin6uipy4
It’s clearly a losing battle within that community if you’re making excuses for “shitty” science getting attention that it both doesn’t deserve and that will actually harm people.
No more than you’re suggesting that there are racist astronomy studies being published, even though I could choose to disingenuously represent your position with that statement.
Racist studies need to be refuted. It’s not that hard. Restricting access to all science (which I see you now notice is what that other commenter was suggesting) isn’t going to magically stop racist studies from being published.
And again, who are you suggesting should be the arbiter?
Are you suggesting there should be no arbiter?
I’ve said exactly what I think. The scientific community is the arbiter, as it is now.
That arbiter is not doing a good job considering the proliferation of antivax, race “science,” and climate change denialism, among other things.
Feel as above the fray as you like, but normalizing the mass distribution of junk/shit or otherwise false science under some lofty ideal of “the free marketplace of ideas will select for the correct data” is clearly, demonstratively, and repeatedly not doing that and hasn’t in the past either.