Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:54AM   Printer-friendly
from the whom-do-you-trust...-and-why? dept.

Danger, Will Robinson!

Given that collaboration [in science] is the norm, you may be asking yourself the eternal question: Who cares? How does the image of a lone scientist hero cause any danger to me?

The problem arises when there is a debate about a scientific topic. Following this structure, debate is a necessary and encouraged part of the scientific process. This debate happens before the idea is released to anyone outside of a few scientists and, while it can become heated at times, takes place with great respect between proponents of different viewpoints.

The danger can come when scientific results are released to the public. Our society now provides a platform for anyone to comment, regardless of his or her education, experience or even knowledge of the topic at hand.

While this is an excellent method of disseminating knowledge, it can also provide a platform for any opinion—regardless of the weight of data behind it—to be equal to that released in more traditional scientific ways.

Particularly in today's largely populist climate, people are looking to see the lone scientist hero overthrow the perceived dominance of facts coming from academia.

And herein lies the problem. In this situation, the opinion of a lone commenter may be considered on equal footing with that of tens or hundreds of people who have made the subject their life's work to ensure their interpretations are correct.

Everybody is entitled to their own scientific opinion, but everybody is not entitled to their own scientific facts?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:14PM (20 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:14PM (#600155)

    The solitary scientist will soon be considered the ultimate threat to mankind. Biology research can be done with ever cheaper methods, equipment, and faster computers and more capable software. Results can be shared and discussed using "solitary social networks" on the dark web. Off the grid biology can lead to the production of drugs, deadly diseases, supersoldiers, and a lot more. The opinions of po-lice, ethicysts, and plebeians can be ignored as long as you don't get caught. Long live the solitary scientist.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Underrated=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:52PM (14 children)

    by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:52PM (#600207)

    Off-the-grid chemistry has already led to designer drugs (known as "legal highs" in the UK) that sought to avoid illegality by being a slightly different chemical compound (but with much the same effect on the body).

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:15PM (9 children)

      by edIII (791) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:15PM (#600321)

      Not interested in drugs, but if it were really that easy to perform advanced science, alone, with no oversight, it would be bioweapons.

      I've got a pretty good idea for a bioweapon. Sort of inspired by that movie Doom and research into empathy. If it were possible to genetically identify what makes politicians, bankers, and executives so sociopathic/psychotic controlling avaricious mother fuckers, I could target them directly.

      Options are killing them, but that may be to easy, and cause to much pain to the normal relatives. I'm wondering if it would be possible with some kind of retrovirus to reprogram their brains, or maybe, cure them.

      That would be the most disruptive thing we could do to the 1%. Give them empathy and a connection to their soul back.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:57PM (8 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:57PM (#600344) Journal

        Nice idea of SF.

        But I'd recommend A Clockwork Orange [wikipedia.org] for you next weekend, there are some interesting ethical implication in the "unwilling application of cures to sociopathy"

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:31PM (7 children)

          by edIII (791) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:31PM (#600361)

          I'm okay with the ethics and find it no different than chemically castrating a pedophile or rapist before letting them out of prison, or as a condition of release. Their influences must be removed from societies, otherwise we truly have no hope. Those of us not sociopathic or psychotic also happen to be predominately passive and/or apathetic. Not enough of us stand up, fight, resist, and the result is what we have now. Non representative governments, massive income inequality, etc. In the US over here, we could take back our country and our lives with massive national strikes to force the 1% to capitulate and start heading towards income equality. Very least improve conditions and obtain living wages. Instead, it's Kardashians and bitching on Twitter.

          There may be a minor ethical concern, but you know, I can fucking live with it. I'll take that hit to my karma if it means people have their hearts turned on and their souls back. Compared to brutal oppression, rape, sexual assault, theft, murder, instilling some feelings within somebody seems rather trivial.

          I'm aware of A Clockwork Orange :) Never fully watched it though because I couldn't stand the wanton pointless violence of it. Another good film which explores the topic, THX 1138 [wikipedia.org].

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @10:27PM (6 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @10:27PM (#600387) Journal

            Those of us not sociopathic or psychotic also happen to be predominately passive and/or apathetic.

            Careful what you wish for.
            1. Would it be otherwise, then the 'those of us' will very likely become sociopaths. At least a significant number of them. I'm sure you've met 'petty dictators' in your life, from the local policeman, to the righteous neighbours who disapprove something in your life style, something that don't impact their life, to pointless SJW.
            2. the reaction of individuals is very seldom the reaction of a large group of them. In most of the cases, the social reaction of a group of individuals large enough is that of a almost mindless mob.

            There may be a minor ethical concern, but you know, I can fucking live with it

            Sorry, but I can't.

            I'm aware of A Clockwork Orange :) Never fully watched it though because I couldn't stand the wanton pointless violence of it.

            Maybe I got you wrong in the above (if so, I'm happy to stand corrected), but how do you reconcile 'the removal of sociopaths by fighting them, with minor ethical concerns' with 'can't stand wanton violence'? You don't think that the sociopath will actually vanish into oblivion at the snap of your fingers, do you?

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:34PM (5 children)

              by edIII (791) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:34PM (#600424)

              1. Would it be otherwise, then the 'those of us' will very likely become sociopaths. At least a significant number of them. I'm sure you've met 'petty dictators' in your life, from the local policeman, to the righteous neighbours who disapprove something in your life style, something that don't impact their life, to pointless SJW.

              I kind of believe that we are creating more and more of them each day. After all, it's the only path that is rewarded. What is taught to kids? What is taught to victims? Suck it up, morality is just to sound good, and get whatever you can while the getting is good. Those in power always have been largely unaccountable and don't play by the same rules. People aren't morons. They know the games that are being played, they just lack the strength of will and/or sophistication to organize and "fight" back.

              2. the reaction of individuals is very seldom the reaction of a large group of them. In most of the cases, the social reaction of a group of individuals large enough is that of a almost mindless mob.

              I did mean passive and/or apathetic as a group. Agree with you that people act differently as individuals than they do as a group.

              Sorry, but I can't.

              I can. I'll live with it for you.

              Maybe I got you wrong in the above (if so, I'm happy to stand corrected), but how do you reconcile 'the removal of sociopaths by fighting them, with minor ethical concerns' with 'can't stand wanton violence'? You don't think that the sociopath will actually vanish into oblivion at the snap of your fingers, do you?

              Yes, a minor misunderstanding. By fighting, I meant activism. Standing up, attending rallies, attending mass protests, sit ins, etc. I did not mean physical violence towards those identified as the problem. Not even the White Nationalists that take to the streets deserve wanton violence upon them. Defending ourselves if necessary, but never attacking. The teacher in San Francisco that attacked a "Nazi" was completely wrong in saying it was always justified to perform violence upon people identifying as Nazis.

              The sociopaths, aka 1%, will not vanish, and I'm not proposing a bioweapon to kill them per se. I've been proposing for some time that the 1% be eliminated. Specifically their influence upon society and the income inequality. Killing them outright is extremely problematic, and that's without considering ethics or morality at all. The problem has always been one of identification, isolation, and mitigation. A race war is so much more convenient, because it's very easy to identify the sides of the conflict. This is not the same situation, even remotely. The idea the 1% are white American men is silly, simplistic, and naive. I find it incredibly hilarious that White Nationalists go on about diversity, and how diversity is bad, when the 1% are entirely diverse, multi-racial, and multi-cultural. In fact, I would say they have one overarching culture; Social dominance, violence, avarice, and dishonesty.

              The bioweapon targets what makes somebody a sociopath, that deep seated disease that makes them shallow, manipulative, avaricious, and deeply narcissistic. Our ethical conundrum is whether it is right or not to introduce a process that evolves them and forces changes within their brain chemistry, and their very psychological makeup. How do you rape somebody when it makes you want to cry watching their pain, fear, and suffering? How do you continue when there is an overwhelming fundamental need to nurture instead?

              Nobody is disappearing. Actual murder is just not possible, although I've argued that it is entirely necessary at this point to save the species. The planet will most be likely be fine and has suffered mass extinctions before. That, and Earth isn't going to be this habitable blue jewel forever anyways. What is a tragedy, is that a species evolved here on this planet that turned out to be too self-destructive to survive, in the face of sophisticated knowledge and understandings of ourselves, nature, and the universe.

              Considering all that, you fucking betcha. I'll pound that button happily to let loose the bioweapon upon them. The rest of you can discuss the ethical implications for hundreds of years, but at least you may have a chance to survive that long. Personally, I'm not hurting them all that much, if anything, and there is a chance that they could be objectively and subjectively more happy with their lives. I'll roll the dice that I won't end up in some level of Hell, but even so, somebody has to do it, and I would do it for you. I have no choice, as it is turned on in me to a very strong degree to live for others, performs actions that benefit everybody, and that the sea raises up all ships.

              --
              Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:09AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:09AM (#600485)

                Yeah, but creating "sociopaths" is a societal problem. Sociopaths supposedly actually have a different brain structure than the average human, but capitalist promotion of greed by exploiting your fellow man by giving the lion's share of the rewards to a tiny portion at the top. Thus pyramid scheme. Leaders are nothing without their team, we need to readjust the economic rewards for the various team roles. Like wildly adjust and correct for the tri..outliers!

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:14AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:14AM (#600486)

                Where is the -1 Scary mod when I want it?

                • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 24 2017, @05:14AM

                  by edIII (791) on Friday November 24 2017, @05:14AM (#600937)

                  LOL. For what?

                  Advocating we give everyone empathy? That's all I proposed, a literal cure for sociopathic behavior, in which pretty much all other discussions is rightly framed as a disease of the mind. For one not suffering the disease the effects are no different than a placebo.

                  If Care Bare Guerilla warfare scares you...

                  --
                  Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
              • (Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:50AM (1 child)

                by Magic Oddball (3847) on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:50AM (#600568) Journal

                There's a couple of big problems with your logic. First, anti-social personality disorder involves specific structural differences in the brain that also crop up in successful, seemingly-normal people [smithsonianmag.com]. The main thing that appears to determine which route the person takes is whether they also have a particular allele that causes them to be more susceptible to social influence as children, and whether they're raised in a highly functional, affectionate family.

                Second, the genetics behind neuropsych/neurodevelopmental conditions like that most likely are the reason their associated traits appear in our species: remove the underlying genes, and we lose the benefits of the trait, which would make humanity quite a bit less successful in the long run.

                Also, a couple of briefer thoughts:
                1) The vast majority of rapists & murderers show no sign of being sociopaths, bad people, or diagnosable with anything.

                2) Your sentiment is the exact sort of thing that a sociopath would write: "I can live with violating their most fundamental rights, if it'll make the world more the way I think it should be, and besides, they'd be happier being like me anyway."

                • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 24 2017, @05:30AM

                  by edIII (791) on Friday November 24 2017, @05:30AM (#600942)

                  On #2, It's not an easy decision mind you. I'm old, and the world has only ever gotten worse, and we're reaching a point of no return. If we haven't already.

                  Extenuating Circumstances. How much worse does it need to get before you would do something? 99.9999% inequality? Almost all of our rights gone? Completely under a totalitarian regime? Escalating economic impacts from climate events bringing us to ruin? The consumer protections of a wet napkin? Pollution all around you, because you know, accidents happen?

                  Sorry, but we've past the point were we can afford to have them around us. It's a like a sci-fi movie where you need to kick the infected guy off the space station, and I'm the a-hole that's got press the button on the airlock. Except, instead of killing him, it's, "Frank, now I'm sorry buddy, but I got to give you the ability to have feelings okay? You won't be able to poke anyone with a fork and smile anymore okay?".

                  --
                  Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:36AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:36AM (#600456)

      Genetically modified microbes could be used to secrete drugs like hydrocodone, morphine, and LSD [theguardian.com]. This could become a lot easier than using traditional chemistry to make the drugs. Once you have a genome sequence, you can share it digitally. In the future, everyone with the ability to synthesize an organism from scratch in their lab could use it right away. Others could use mail order services to get the DNA or organism made.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:21AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:21AM (#600491)

        > Genetically modified microbes could be used to secrete drugs ...

        This is a little more subtle than the psychedelics in the water in "The Futurological Congress" by Stanisław Lem. But perhaps discussing the same distopian future?
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Futurological_Congress [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 1) by ants_in_pants on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:08AM (1 child)

      by ants_in_pants (6665) on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:08AM (#600536)

      note: RCs are generally considered dangerous because the effects over long-term use are less known.

      LSD-25 analogs have taken many of my friends' psyches away.

      --
      -Love, ants_in_pants
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:15AM (#600537)

        Define "psyche".

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:52PM (4 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:52PM (#600340) Journal

    shared and discussed using "solitary social networks"

    The image of a solitary scientist sharing and discussing the research on social networks is a nice literary construct.
    In the same category as "military intelligence" and "deafening silence".
    The "dark web" and the "conspiratorial air" surrounding the image are just smoke and mirrors obscuring the stylistic contradiction.

    ---

    If you want to make a point, make it in full and clear.
    For example, you could say (if that was you point): "solitary" is irrelevant, the danger stays in the very concept of "sanctioned science" - if the/some scientists need to go dark to continue doing what they do, then something is fishy.
    Or whatever point you want to make.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:24AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:24AM (#600453)

      Sorry, I thought you were smart enough to realize the implications by yourself without being lectured.

      Normal scientists share results with known peers, compete for grants, abide by ethics restraints shackles, and care about shit like impact factors. Solitary scientists, if they care to share anything at all, would share results anonymously for the purpose of acquiring or distributing knowledge, to benefit directly from the knowledge of others or to spread their advances. They don't care about getting credit or a Nobel prize. They can conduct any unethical or illegal experiments they want. Interacting with others in the "solitary" way is a simple form of peer review that can benefit each individual. You are still operating your lab in your basement, unknown to your neighbors and contemporaries.

      The dark web is a necessary component, not stylistic, because anything less and your country's intelligence services will put you in cuffs or kill you. The FBI is monitoring the DIY biology community closely. They want to undermine good science under the guise of ethics and national security. Fuck them until death.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:56AM (2 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:56AM (#600462) Journal

        They can conduct any unethical or illegal experiments they want

        The FBI is monitoring the DIY biology community closely. They want to undermine good science under the guise of ethics and national security. Fuck them until death.

        I wish** you to become the guinea pig for such an unethical and illegal scientist, in a non-lethal way. (Shall that one be virusology or experimental drugs? I'll let you decide between the two.)
        Be it only for the reason to share with the 'white Web' the reasons for which ethical considerations are... ummm... a necessary evil in science.

        ---
        ** I actually don't wish you this, but you should get the idea, smart as it seems you are.

        Ummm... just in case you are not that smart, I'm sure I'll welcome you in my basement; I always wanted to get into 'evil chemistry' or drugs. I assure you I'll be as unethical towards you as you like, I might actually exceed your expectations... and I'll share the knowledge, derived from unethically using you, on the Web, the dark one if so you like. (grin)
        PS I don't have a basement, so we may want to delay the things for a while.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:22AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:22AM (#600468)

          Why bother kidnapping or coercing a guinea pig? At the end of this road, we will be making genetically modified babies in artificial wombs. All the test subjects you could ever need can be created in a lab with a low risk of exposure to the outside world. Basement, shipping container, shack in the woods, whatever fits your budget.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:31AM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:31AM (#600473) Journal

            For real world, in the field, experimental confirmation.

            I mean... look, where's the evil part of the fun if your discovery doesn't lead to "world domination mwa-ha-ha-ha"? (grin)

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford