Still, we have gone a long way since the "90's, with patients being able to live (almost) normal lives. The understanding of the HIV virus has also improved considerably since that time.
I don't dispute that at all. And this research is hugely valuable for all the things it tells us. I was just commenting about all these "in 5...10 years" prediction and using this one here to make a point.
Well, here is to hoping you get it from a blood transfusion or a contaminated instrument. Unlike you, most scientists do actually have ethical standards, not just irrational hate.
Around 1990 we had claims of a "cure in 5...10 years" by actual experts. Now, 30 years later, we actually have an experimental cure that worked two times and both times it was a purely accidental side-effect of a very risky cancer treatment. Hence we still do not have a cure that is worth the risks. Human hubris at work.
Agree on your statement on Ethics. There are different ways to see it. As to Nuclear, Fucku(p)shima made the "but in the West" argument obsolete, because it does not get any more technologically advanced than Japan. If they cannot do it safely, nobody can and it is really not a tech problem.
Anyways, it has been a while since somebody on/. gave me a good discussion, thanks!
You did not read the story. They _cannot_ store energy like a battery. They can just make coal. This is also not really the great breakthrough the story claims. For liquid hydrocarbons, this already works and prototype installations are running.
Let's hope it will be "almost none" of this stuff that works in the real world pr we are really, really screwed. I do think these grand claims are scientific misconduct though, because it is essentially lies by misdirection. Not acceptable. I think this should get their funding cancelled and, if repeated, their PhDs removed for grossly damaging the reputation of their field.
I.e. almost never pans out due to cost, scalability and other problems. I do think this is a serious form of scientific misconduct: Misleading the public about what something can actually realistically be expected to do.
Indeed. Formalize it, put the skin color in as variable and it becomes immediately obvious. It is the approach that is wrong, regardless of who applies it to whom.
This is, of course, far from obvious to the "us vs. them" crowd, where "us" is always the virtuous ones (and often the victims) and "them" is always the bad guys. I can seem the attraction of that stance though: No need to reflect, no need to change anything on your side, no need to actually understand anything and you are always on the righteous side. That this works exactly the same for the other side is something these people just are not equipped to understand.
This is the one place where I actually discriminate: I think stupid people like these should not be allowed to direct where a society is going.
In theory, yes. However, even scientists are only experts in their own narrow field and have to trust the other scientists for everything else.
Actually, no. First, any real scientist does understand the scientific process and what it can and cannot deliver. And second, a scientist is able to verify claims in a different field to a much deeper degree than a non-scientist. Sure, the quality of that verification drops the more removed the other field is, but it is still much better than what a non-scientist can do. Hence at least good scientists are a lot harder to fool and at the same time do understand a lot better when they are incompetent with regards to a specific subject. Does not solve the problem of bad scientists though, and unfortunately we have a lot of those. Doing paper reviews did really open my eyes here.
Ironically, ethics is not scientific.:-)
I don't agree on that. While the goals of specific ethics are something else, the way to get there are quite subject to Science. As an example, utilitarian ethics is quite scientific in its approach. It is also quite problematic in some regards, but for example you can prove scientifically that in a surveillance society (in any kind of totalitarian society, really) productivity drops massively as people are much more depressed and everybody is in fear most of the time and a lot of time is wasted on ritual. (Amazon's "The man in the high castle" shows that very nicely, BTW.) I use this as an example to explain to students why the standard argumentation of fascism does not actually work. Usually causes some lights to go off in some heads;-) So one thing you can do is find that some ethics are actually not effective in this world because they are broken in the means they claim can achieve their goals.
But you can even examine and get insights into the goals of a specific type of ethics by applying scientific analysis. Sure, you cannot justify the goal _itself_ scientifically, that is just not possible as Science is amoral. Science does not care whether you analyze, say, Hedonism or the very core principles of the Sith Lords. It will point out though that as the Sith believe in one master having one student and the student usually killing the master, they will eventually die out by attrition.
There are conflicts we will have with us for a long time.
We will. For your the GM foods example, it is more that the people do not trust the researchers than the research. And I agree on that. Ethically (that word again) and carefully done GM foods research that is result-open and benefits everybody, I have no problem with. But if [insert food multi here] looks for ways to get people hooked on their stuff or [insert poisons giant here] is looking for ways to be able to put even more dangerous poisons on the crops without their specific crops dying, then I have a huge problem with this. And the past shows that these companies cannot be trusted at all to respect the general good.
This form of "anti racism" is just as racist as what they pretend to fight. The only way to not be racist is to ignore race. Note to IBM: Racism does not get any less despicable when you change who you target.
Indeed. They do not fear tech and many of them are under the illusion that because they can use tech, they understand it. In actual reality, they are just as clueless to the inner workings of tech and, in particular, how it can be abused, as previous generations.
You almost got that right. The previous century was about pretending to think, were you camouflage dangerous emotions like racism, sexism, greed, etc. as the result rational thought. The same is now applied to "doing".
Just look what is touted as "AI" today, or all the things that are "revolutionary". Sure, these people corrupt the language, but the real problem is the morons that are their target and believe all that crap.
I agree that it is a problem. But it is that Science is not egalitarian. If you want to actually have a voice in Science, you need to devote a larger part of your life to it and you need some pretty specific talents to start with. And that voice needs to come with proof for the statements made, so just pushing opinions (all that most people can actually do) is not going to cut it. Hence most people cannot get a voice in science.
That said, the problem is made worse by regrettably quite a few scientists that have the expert knowledge, but are lacking in ethics. Hence they can be bought and they will lie or at least misdirect (which often requires another expert to notice). So while Science is about truth and insight, scientists are not always and far too often not.
I do think this problem has to be solved in Science. We need to make sure (being a scientist myself) that people can actually trust what scientists claim and explain to them. This does include Engineers here, as quite a bit of tech is not strictly Science anymore but has huge impact on society. My own small contribution is that whenever I teach, I make it a point to always include ethical aspects. And to both explain my own take on things ethics-wise and to tell the student that they must make their own decisions in that regards (which may well differ from mine) and that just going with the flow is not acceptable. They must take responsibility for their actions. No idea how much good that does in the end, but I think that is the best we can do at this time.
If the general public can trust Science and scientists and does listen to them, then democracy can work. As it is now (anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, cmimate-change deniers, etc. all allowed to vote and not allowing them to vote being even worse), democracy is broken. There is no better replacement, but this, the best current solution, is abysmally bad.
Well, I regard people that selectively accept only the science that fits what they believe to be fundamentally "anti-science". Science is not a bazaar where you select what you like and ignore the rest. You can either be rational and accept the full package (whit all the sometimes very uncomfortable facts that brings) or be irrational and treat scientifically well-established facts as things that are up to discussion by laypeople or even as things that can be conveniently ignored. Of course, Science has also less well-established facts and things that are speculation. But it is emphatically not up to non-experts to determine which is which.
Slashdot Mirror
The amount of stupidity and greed expressed in this is truly amazing.
Still, we have gone a long way since the "90's, with patients being able to live (almost) normal lives. The understanding of the HIV virus has also improved considerably since that time.
I don't dispute that at all. And this research is hugely valuable for all the things it tells us. I was just commenting about all these "in 5...10 years" prediction and using this one here to make a point.
Well, here is to hoping you get it from a blood transfusion or a contaminated instrument. Unlike you, most scientists do actually have ethical standards, not just irrational hate.
Around 1990 we had claims of a "cure in 5...10 years" by actual experts. Now, 30 years later, we actually have an experimental cure that worked two times and both times it was a purely accidental side-effect of a very risky cancer treatment. Hence we still do not have a cure that is worth the risks. Human hubris at work.
Yes, but maybe you will get reincarnated right into the middle of the mess. Then the joke is on you.
Come on, you want to be a troll? Pathetic! You can do better than that! Try again.
Your statement puts you straight in the manipulative dishonest crowd. That is not what I said or implied.
Agree on your statement on Ethics. There are different ways to see it. As to Nuclear, Fucku(p)shima made the "but in the West" argument obsolete, because it does not get any more technologically advanced than Japan. If they cannot do it safely, nobody can and it is really not a tech problem.
Anyways, it has been a while since somebody on /. gave me a good discussion, thanks!
You did not read the story. They _cannot_ store energy like a battery. They can just make coal. This is also not really the great breakthrough the story claims. For liquid hydrocarbons, this already works and prototype installations are running.
You're not saying that companies LIE about what AI is, are you?
I would never do that. Honest!
Ah, of course.
Let's hope it will be "almost none" of this stuff that works in the real world pr we are really, really screwed. I do think these grand claims are scientific misconduct though, because it is essentially lies by misdirection. Not acceptable. I think this should get their funding cancelled and, if repeated, their PhDs removed for grossly damaging the reputation of their field.
I.e. almost never pans out due to cost, scalability and other problems. I do think this is a serious form of scientific misconduct: Misleading the public about what something can actually realistically be expected to do.
Indeed. Formalize it, put the skin color in as variable and it becomes immediately obvious. It is the approach that is wrong, regardless of who applies it to whom.
This is, of course, far from obvious to the "us vs. them" crowd, where "us" is always the virtuous ones (and often the victims) and "them" is always the bad guys. I can seem the attraction of that stance though: No need to reflect, no need to change anything on your side, no need to actually understand anything and you are always on the righteous side. That this works exactly the same for the other side is something these people just are not equipped to understand.
This is the one place where I actually discriminate: I think stupid people like these should not be allowed to direct where a society is going.
But it is that Science is not egalitarian.
In theory, yes. However, even scientists are only experts in their own narrow field and have to trust the other scientists for everything else.
Actually, no. First, any real scientist does understand the scientific process and what it can and cannot deliver. And second, a scientist is able to verify claims in a different field to a much deeper degree than a non-scientist. Sure, the quality of that verification drops the more removed the other field is, but it is still much better than what a non-scientist can do. Hence at least good scientists are a lot harder to fool and at the same time do understand a lot better when they are incompetent with regards to a specific subject. Does not solve the problem of bad scientists though, and unfortunately we have a lot of those. Doing paper reviews did really open my eyes here.
Ironically, ethics is not scientific. :-)
I don't agree on that. While the goals of specific ethics are something else, the way to get there are quite subject to Science. As an example, utilitarian ethics is quite scientific in its approach. It is also quite problematic in some regards, but for example you can prove scientifically that in a surveillance society (in any kind of totalitarian society, really) productivity drops massively as people are much more depressed and everybody is in fear most of the time and a lot of time is wasted on ritual. (Amazon's "The man in the high castle" shows that very nicely, BTW.) I use this as an example to explain to students why the standard argumentation of fascism does not actually work. Usually causes some lights to go off in some heads ;-) So one thing you can do is find that some ethics are actually not effective in this world because they are broken in the means they claim can achieve their goals.
But you can even examine and get insights into the goals of a specific type of ethics by applying scientific analysis. Sure, you cannot justify the goal _itself_ scientifically, that is just not possible as Science is amoral. Science does not care whether you analyze, say, Hedonism or the very core principles of the Sith Lords. It will point out though that as the Sith believe in one master having one student and the student usually killing the master, they will eventually die out by attrition.
There are conflicts we will have with us for a long time.
We will. For your the GM foods example, it is more that the people do not trust the researchers than the research. And I agree on that. Ethically (that word again) and carefully done GM foods research that is result-open and benefits everybody, I have no problem with. But if [insert food multi here] looks for ways to get people hooked on their stuff or [insert poisons giant here] is looking for ways to be able to put even more dangerous poisons on the crops without their specific crops dying, then I have a huge problem with this. And the past shows that these companies cannot be trusted at all to respect the general good.
This form of "anti racism" is just as racist as what they pretend to fight. The only way to not be racist is to ignore race. Note to IBM: Racism does not get any less despicable when you change who you target.
Indeed. They do not fear tech and many of them are under the illusion that because they can use tech, they understand it. In actual reality, they are just as clueless to the inner workings of tech and, in particular, how it can be abused, as previous generations.
You almost got that right. The previous century was about pretending to think, were you camouflage dangerous emotions like racism, sexism, greed, etc. as the result rational thought. The same is now applied to "doing".
So what about sending them to prison? Most large one do deserve that...
Just look what is touted as "AI" today, or all the things that are "revolutionary". Sure, these people corrupt the language, but the real problem is the morons that are their target and believe all that crap.
I agree that it is a problem. But it is that Science is not egalitarian. If you want to actually have a voice in Science, you need to devote a larger part of your life to it and you need some pretty specific talents to start with. And that voice needs to come with proof for the statements made, so just pushing opinions (all that most people can actually do) is not going to cut it. Hence most people cannot get a voice in science.
That said, the problem is made worse by regrettably quite a few scientists that have the expert knowledge, but are lacking in ethics. Hence they can be bought and they will lie or at least misdirect (which often requires another expert to notice). So while Science is about truth and insight, scientists are not always and far too often not.
I do think this problem has to be solved in Science. We need to make sure (being a scientist myself) that people can actually trust what scientists claim and explain to them. This does include Engineers here, as quite a bit of tech is not strictly Science anymore but has huge impact on society. My own small contribution is that whenever I teach, I make it a point to always include ethical aspects. And to both explain my own take on things ethics-wise and to tell the student that they must make their own decisions in that regards (which may well differ from mine) and that just going with the flow is not acceptable. They must take responsibility for their actions. No idea how much good that does in the end, but I think that is the best we can do at this time.
If the general public can trust Science and scientists and does listen to them, then democracy can work. As it is now (anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, cmimate-change deniers, etc. all allowed to vote and not allowing them to vote being even worse), democracy is broken. There is no better replacement, but this, the best current solution, is abysmally bad.
In addition, and that may be even more important, you get in-house experts that have loyalty to you.
Well, I regard people that selectively accept only the science that fits what they believe to be fundamentally "anti-science". Science is not a bazaar where you select what you like and ignore the rest. You can either be rational and accept the full package (whit all the sometimes very uncomfortable facts that brings) or be irrational and treat scientifically well-established facts as things that are up to discussion by laypeople or even as things that can be conveniently ignored. Of course, Science has also less well-established facts and things that are speculation. But it is emphatically not up to non-experts to determine which is which.
Don't know whether that is the mechanism, but sounds plausible to me.
Scientific consensus is not the same as consensus. Do you know nothing?