Hacker News Reader

Comment by samatman | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

You linked to an editorial about ethics. I'm not sure what to make of it, are you against conducting research and communicating it in an ethical way? Or do you disagree about something specific in that article? Either way I'm not sure I'm seeing the connection between what you're saying and the original article.

It doesn’t matter what time we’re in, styling scientific progress to uphold the morality of the day is inherently regressive and motivated by nothing more than the establishment trying to maintain their privilege and power.

You don’t fear research because you believe your morals and ideology are backed by facts and evidence. If we have a study tomorrow showing that day, hormone blockers have some horrible side effect that makes them an inappropriate treatment, that’s transphobic so just don’t study it. The ethics don’t matter, just everybody thinking you were on the right side of history.

We do have studies showing this, and the research has been attacked in the way you describe. Far too many people have immersed themselves in this belief system, believing themselves to be righteous above all else, curtailing any critical thought around that topic.

It's kind of fascinating to observe once you realize what's going on, that it's a secular cult whose followers don't even notice they're trapped within.

Are you saying that organizations like the Mayo Clinic or Cleveland Clinic are ideologically captured and are suppressing information about the risks of puberty blockers?

Do you have a source for this claim? What is this secular cult and how is it trapping people?

Yes, they are ideologically captured, as are many, many institutions regarding this topic.

Even better, what if someone developed a drug that simply makes gender dysphoria disappear? Those suffering of dysphoria could then choose to avoid a lengthy, painful and destructive process to align their body to their mind, and take a drug and align their mind with their body. How do you think it would be received?

? If a medication causes severe side effects you tell people, that hasn't changed. This article could have been written in 1995

The article is referring to knowledge based research ABOUT humans, not research WITH or ON humans. From the article (my capitalization added for emphasis):

---

Although academic freedom is fundamental, it is not unbounded. The same ethical considerations should underlie science ABOUT humans as apply to research WITH human participants.

...

Ensuring that ethically conducted research on individual differences and differences among human groups flourishes, and no research is discouraged simply because it may be socially or academically controversial, IS AS IMPORTANT as preventing harm. Science has for too long been complicit in perpetuating structural inequalities and discrimination in society. With this guidance, we take a step towards countering this.

---

History seems to endlessly repeat itself. Not just in broad strokes but quite literally, down to identical events and happenings. In the past the Church did actively encourage scientific research, but there was the condition that any findings and framings could not contradict the common ideological values of the time. And here we are again.

Science and ethics are connected literally for ever

An ethos which decides the truth in advance of inquiry is not science, this is axiomatic.

Nobody in the linked article suggested doing that

In what journal do you publish then?

> no longer a journal of science, but rather, political ideology

The title of the article you linked to: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

Hmm, yes, I can see why you might find that troubling. Can’t have scientists go around respecting people, that’s just madness.

Indeed that is the title.

Pravda means Truth, Comrade.

To pull out a dusty old saying- “Reality has a liberal bias”. Many objectively scientific views end up running counter to preexisting ideologies.

For some definitions of 'liberal'

Like the mainstream one!

Do you mean the American meaning, or the one used by the rest of the world?

By rest of the world do you mean Europe?

No.

Even worse - I've heard that many of the editors at Nature have been vaccinated.

You managed to trigger multiple people. Serves as a reminder that techies often think their smarts extend to all other areas of life. I'm pretty sure there's some name for this phenomenon... :)

Well - to be fair - it's simply not possible to determine if the people disagreeing with me understood my comment to be sarcasm.

Still, I stand by it, as I do not believe there is merit in earnestly engaging with people who feel it's inappropriate to condemn racism and sexism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com