TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

An Existential Threat to Doing Good Science

97 点作者 curmudgeon22超过 2 年前

6 条评论

NeverFade超过 2 年前
We have a lazy tendency to judge complex phenomena by superficial external features. It&#x27;s a mental shortcut.<p>The word &quot;tyranny&quot; evokes images of mid 20th century fascist soldiers marching through streets, in shiny black leather boots. Tyranny is seen as instigated by the known set of motivations that were in play at that specific time and place: hate, racist bigotry, intolerance, a sense of superiority.<p>We then fail to identify tyranny, even when it&#x27;s the same phenomenon at its core, because superficially it looks different. It looks the opposite: where the fascist tyranny was instigated by racism, this apparently new and different phenomena is motivated by an extremely strong reaction to racism.<p>We fail to acknowledge that sometimes the reaction can be just as bad, and lead to the same pathology, as the problem that initially provoked it.<p>We ended up in a very similar position of hatred, intolerance, and sense of superiority. We just fail to realize it, because the flag-bearers of this new form of tyranny are entirely convinced they are &quot;the good guys&quot;, and are only correcting the faults of the &quot;bad guys&quot;: the fascists and bigots of yore.<p>Come to think of it: the fascists ideologues were probably certain of being &quot;the good guys&quot;, themselves.
评论 #33516506 未加载
评论 #33516473 未加载
评论 #33516883 未加载
jraby3超过 2 年前
How do we as a society combat this oversensitivity? Since when is the use of the word “guys” a micro aggression?<p>Why is it so rare for someone to stand up against this type of behavior?
评论 #33518354 未加载
评论 #33516803 未加载
评论 #33516657 未加载
评论 #33518337 未加载
评论 #33520217 未加载
评论 #33516778 未加载
MrJohz超过 2 年前
I don&#x27;t want to correct a biologist on a subject that they&#x27;re clearly an expert on, but the discussion on sex seems like it&#x27;s missing a lot of context. I wonder if they are making the mistake of thinking everyone is referring to the word &quot;sex&quot; in the same way?<p>The author seems to be talking about sex in terms of gametes - i.e. sperm and eggs. They make the claim that there is an absolute sex difference between male and female sexes in terms of this gamete structure. I am happy to take them on their word on this point.<p>But this is obviously not the only definition we have for sex. Individuals in a gonochoric species have a sex that in most cases corresponds to the gametes that they can produce, but this is not absolute. In humans, we know that intersex and possibly even hermaphroditic individuals can exist: these people certainly do not conform to a perfectly binary sex distinction. So clearly there is a definition of sex - and a widely used one at that - where the author is incorrect, and human sexes are more complicated than a perfect binary split.<p>This obviously doesn&#x27;t invalidate the rest of the article, but it does suggest that some of the issue may lie in communication rather than oppression. For example, the author links to the &quot;gender unicorn&quot; model, but this fairly plainly discusses sex as a medical phenomenon (where it is typically assigned at birth, corresponds to reproductive organs, and where some people will not clearly fall in one category or another). This is presumably not being used by the same people studying evolutionary biology, where sex is an expression of gamete-based reproduction and - at least at a population level - binary. (Or at least, if it is, I imagine it will be within a specific context.)<p>Looking through some of the evidence linked by the article, this seems to be the case. For example, the article links statements from scientific groups claiming that sex is a continuum, but the statements are very clearly in response to decisions that would affect medical care for humans (where it would be incorrect to assume a strict distinction - if anything, medicine is the study of exceptions to the norm), and do not in principle disagree with that continuum being bimodal in respects to gamete-based reproduction.<p>Similarly, the author cites another article that they believe restricts discussion on reproduction to species that don&#x27;t have binary sex. But my reading of the same article is (a) that it is exclusively focused on educating students (rather than wider scientific discussion), and (b) arguing for more examples rather than fewer to help students understand that reproduction can be much more complex than the traditional &quot;sexual&#x2F;asexual&quot; model that they are often taught before university.<p>I am not in academia, so ultimately I can&#x27;t tell the author that what they&#x27;re experiencing isn&#x27;t true. But as someone reading their article, I came away with the impression that the author would do well to read through some of the sources they cite with a more open mind, and attempt to understand why some people are concerned about biological gender in humans being restricted to a binary state.
评论 #33519391 未加载
评论 #33527672 未加载
reilly3000超过 2 年前
I value academic freedom and the integrity to pursue knowledge regardless of its outcomes. It’s the fruit of a just and wealthy society, it’s value endures across millennia.<p>Why then is OP scared of some kids. It’s as if he’s perceiving this generation of his students as an invasive species, upsetting an ecosystem of which he is the apex. He gives no voice to his interloper’s concerns or goals; simply that it is too much. This is classic form of a well-trodden, meaningless screed.<p>He feels somehow powerless in the face of ignorance of his students. Find a new career, or teach them. Learn from them. Offer some dignity to their humanity even when they don’t reciprocate. Model maturity.<p>I think that there are vast vestiges of academia which still don’t understand how completely their relationship with knowledge has changed in the past 30 years. Universities historically have “owned” knowledge and its artifacts. Now knowledge is universally accessible and rapidly growing. We need to train people to Integrate, Validate, and Develop knowledge. That takes personal, challenging work from all.<p>As a biologist it’s easy to fixated on the mechanics and metrics of reproduction. We’re seeing a decline in population growth and interest in reproduction in humans despite an overabundance of food. Young adults are facing economic turmoil, religious trauma, a doomed planet, and a bunch of regressive twats violently clinging to power. They perceive it as so futile that fertility is not viable. The way an organism perceives its environs dictates its behavior, not only the environment itself.<p>Baby Boomers dictated the environment of the generation you proclaim to fear. You are complicit in what formed their grievances, passively or actively. You can participate in their resolution, and help these powerful young people to mature into the tolerant, curious individuals they are capable of becoming.<p>This piece is not instructive. It’s as petulant as a toddler that has to share. It’s the same tenor as a small business owner trying to invoke pity and obtain material support from a governing body. It’s frankly pathetic. A bunch of teens aren’t going to destroy biology. Acknowledge your own ignorance of the lives of your patrons, their novel circumstances, and do what can be done to remedy it. Or retire.<p>I could be writing YAML right now, but I’m writing this with the hope that someone voluntarily does what the author of this piece missed to understand that you are the solution, not the victim. Every adult needs to learn this, every mentor needs to teach it. We face challenges of unprecedented scale which test the limits of our evolutionary progress, especially around our ability to collaborate in increasingly vast numbers. We face the practical limits of human empathy, where global 24&#x2F;7 news brings a deluge of tragedies to mourn and mend. We are seemingly incapable of stopping ourselves from destroying our own environment.<p>The weight of it all has given rise to extremes. If those extremes threaten the things you hold dear, please do what you can to reduce the standard deviation. That means welcoming unpleasant extremists into your spaces and lives, and engaging with their beliefs. It involves seeing them as whole people, valuable and vulnerable. I feel so very strongly that it is the responsibility of our leaders and literati to model and advance the cause of cooperation. If for nothing else than our own survival.
评论 #33517120 未加载
评论 #33516976 未加载
评论 #33518690 未加载
评论 #33518494 未加载
devwastaken超过 2 年前
Every generation believes their Ronald Reagan is progressive and moral.<p>From reviewing their other articles this site is clearly a republican news source. It&#x27;s likely this story is significantly altered from the truth.
评论 #33517125 未加载
评论 #33517240 未加载
Animats超过 2 年前
Well, we&#x27;ll have to rely on the superior race - Chinese - to do work in those areas. Average East Asian IQ, 105, remember.
评论 #33519313 未加载