/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12200366]

You do consider the impact of your research before you publish it, right /sci/?

[Anonymous No.12200384]

Opportunities to publish are few and far between for terrible researchers so she should check her privilege before asking me to pick and choose what I publish.

[Anonymous No.12200399]

>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T RESEARCH ANYTHING THAT WILL PROVE WHITE NATIONALISTS RIGHT

[Anonymous No.12200695]

>>12200366
>We are literally white supremes and as libtards have to protecc the negroes like surrogate parents. Under no circumstances can we ever publish anything that doesnt make the violent dumb negroes look like poor oppressed little angels

[None !!IUmfnzC35TC No.12200712]

ethics is meme. there are good and bad repercussions whichever direction you go.

[Anonymous No.12202205]

what does the study say?

[Anonymous No.12202213]

>>12200695
>Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

[Anonymous No.12202230]

>>12202205
ah, I get it now

[Anonymous No.12202239]

>>12200366
Are you pretending we need to ignore ethics? What if a study discovers that sacrificing people for their hearts would extend a wealthy person's life indefinitely? Should we publish that report? I'm sure the wealthy would sure like to know. Hope you've got a billion dollars to spend for your immortality or else you can be the first thrown in the grinder for our elite overlords.

You have to always weigh the cost of your study against the harm it may cause. Also don't lecture me, the right wing are the ones who want to deny climate change, fight against vaccines, and argue against evolution.

[Anonymous No.12202250]

>>12202239
yes, because within a decade we would be culturing hearts

[Anonymous No.12202253]

>>12202250
Whelp, enjoy the grinder then
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/science/young-blood-may-hold-key-to-reversing-aging.html

[Anonymous No.12202260]

>>12200366
Global warming anons, how much longer until we have actual problems to worry about again? I grow weary of these coddled people and their myopic conflicts.

[Anonymous No.12202272]

>>12202239
Mention a single instance in which obscuring the truth has not ended badly
>the right wing are the ones who want to deny climate change
and the left wing demonizes nuclear energy which is the solution to the problem
>fight against vaccines
not right wing, look up the statistics
>argue against evolution
says the faggot who denies racial and sexual differences

[Anonymous No.12202283]

>>12202253
yeah, and you know the solution to that? culture blood with the correct antigens

[Anonymous No.12202318]

>>12202239
>argue against evolution.
funny how that applies to leftists when brain development is concerned.

[Anonymous No.12202355]

>>12200366
You do consider the impact before you clamp early, vaccinate, circumcise, fluoridate, brominate, irradiate, chlorinate, incubate, etc, right?

ah, of course not. And decades later, it just keeps going, and going, and going, and going...
....
...
...
and going....

[Anonymous No.12202397]

>>12202272
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.12202403]

>>12202239
>What if a study discovers that sacrificing people for their hearts would extend a wealthy person's life indefinitely?

And what if that study, which motivates malicious actions, leads an audience of scientists to further breakthroughs that don't require anyone be harmed?

Even if you decide knowledge has consequences, no shit captain obvious, where are you going to draw the line? And once you decide, are you going to silence it with authority? Yes? lol No? So it's up to the researcher. Ethics considered, published anyway, fuck you.

[Anonymous No.12202415]

>>12202272
>says the faggot who denies racial and sexual differences
There is no evidence of either of these.

[Anonymous No.12202426]

>>12202230
I dated quite a few epidemiologists who worked for the CDC when I lived in Atlanta. I don't recall any of them being right wing but now I'm wondering if they were hiding their political beliefs.

[Anonymous No.12202433]

>>12202239
>t. i hate free and open inquiry when it results in establishing facts i don't like

[Anonymous No.12202440]

>>12202433
established facts like?

[Anonymous No.12202451]

>>12202239
>What if a study discovers that sacrificing people for their hearts would extend a wealthy person's life indefinitely?
Sounds a lot like George Bush's justification for prohibiting research on stem cells harvested from abortions. Interesting company you keep.

[Anonymous No.12202452]

>>12202440
your mother being a whore.

[Anonymous No.12202453]

>>12202355
Why’d you skip iodize?

[Anonymous No.12202457]

>>12202260
That depends on who you are. If you're one of a couple thousand people wearing grass skirts on an atoll in the middle of the Pacific, probably pretty soon. For everyone else, never.

[Anonymous No.12202461]

>>12202440
Whatever facts it is that the person in OP's image is trying to suppress.

[Anonymous No.12202712]

>>12202453
Iodine is good for you, right

[Anonymous No.12202723]

>>12202415
>sexual dimorphism doesn't exist
Thanks for the laugh
It's proven because women have tits and men don't which proves some differences at the very least

[Anonymous No.12202741]

>>12202272
>Mention a single instance in which obscuring the truth has not ended badly
exactly

[Anonymous No.12203804]

>>12202230
Lol.

[Anonymous No.12203842]

>>12202239
> Claims there are literally infinite number of gender
> Claims 'nuclear bad! look Chernobyl and Fukushima!'
> Still claims Marxism, which has been always theoretically and realistically debunked, is meaningful.
> 'I fucking love science! Right wing bad!'

Fucking kek

[Anonymous No.12203945]

>>12200366
No I couldn't give a fuck.

[Anonymous No.12204019]

>>12202230
>epidemiology
Bull shit. If that were the case then we wouldn't be up to our chins with COVID. What do they even mean by "audience"? Surely not the general public

[Anonymous No.12204073]

>>12202415
>we can't publish evidence that would prove a point we've already decided is wrong
>so there's no evidence therefore it's wrong :^)
Modern lysenkoism

[Anonymous No.12204556]

>>12202230
I'm a systems biologist. I could probably do research thats racist but I won't because I'm a leftist. Lucky

[Anonymous No.12204559]

>>12204073
Maybe we don't want a race war?

[Anonymous No.12204745]

facts don't care about feelings

[Anonymous No.12204872]

>>12202239
>the right wing are the ones who want to deny climate change, fight against vaccines, and argue against evolution.
and anyone doing so without data is a fool. What is your point? There are dumb with beliefs that aren't yours therefore you can decide to hide truth?

I am quite tired of the left-right binary hiding these petty despots in a cloak of liberalism, they are authoritarians through and through, Commies in civ, Nazi in another, heretic burning priests if they had the power to do so.

[Anonymous No.12204893]

>>12200366
So, take from this screencap is right-wing white nationalists read far more papers than other groups and need to be stopped?

[Anonymous No.12204896]

>>12202440
nigger

[Anonymous No.12204905]

>>12204019
Lol I sympathize with right wing and I totally would force everyone to wear mask if I could. One of the case where authoritarianism is good. Only pathetic whiner "muh liberty" "muh human rights" "muh constitution" "muh state oppression" would object