Hacker News Reader

Comment by pfd1986 | Hacker News Reader

pfd1986

Disagree. I think this is like saying Einstein shouldn't have been vocal about the Bomb. I think scientists (and scientific institutions) should use their visibility to make a social point, and that shouldn't at all undermine their scientific credibility.

View on HN

The integrity of a hard science like physics is rarely compromised by political persuasions. I have little idea how his positions on the bomb would have affected his ability to produce unbiased scientific results. The conclusions of those papers have little ramification on the ethics of nuclear weapons.

But if you're trying to do research which investigates the social ramifications of a movement like #MeToo, then a biased researcher will seek out methods which highlight how positive and powerful the movement is, while ignoring metrics which make it look weak, unpopular, or causing negative impacts. Getting the title "Doctor" doesn't magically remove one's bias, especially when there is a systemic bias promoted by the institution at large.

I agree with you. What I would find interesting is if you applied the exact same argument to climate change would you agree with yourself? Because it would amass many attempts to hide it here on HN.

Medical Doctors are biased against diseases like cancer that kill people, and hospitals have systematic institutional biases against cancer, too -- is that so wrong?

Sexually assaulting people and institutionally supporting the perpetrators and covering up their crimes is simply wrong. There isn't another valid side to that argument. The #MeToo movement is on the right side of that argument, and anyone who opposes it or denies it's a problem, like Trump or the Catholic Church, is simply wrong, and likely motivated by their desire to cover up and excuse their own crimes.

You can't fault medical doctors for being biased against cancer, or researchers for being biased against rape and sexual assault.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com