Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
betalars :antifa:

@james yeah but the argument was about non pointless software development, not science in general.

And a lot of the software development that is not pointless happens in science.

5 comments
james

@betalars and I was wanting to talk about scientists doing software development, not scientists in general. I do not know how we can conclude that most scientists are acting good™️, so I am genuinely curious if we can and if so, how. I’ll edit my post as I did not make this clear, thank you.

betalars :antifa:

@james ah okay.

In that sense: I think some scientists will probably claim moral neutrality and I would disagree with that.

Because while I think the scientific process can be described as morally neutral or positive depending on your world view, the question of what is being researched is a highly moral one.

Besides that there's without a doubt scientists acting in bad faith too ... although I feel like science is less lucrative and less vulnerable compared to other fields.

up&

@betalars @james the problem isn't just bad faith research, it's also that science is an industry and research tends to happen because military or other unethical body wants it.

betalars :antifa:

@em
"the question of what is being researched is a highly moral one. "

That is what I was trying to say here.

Steve

@betalars @james the funding mechanism and publication metric creates a great many perverse incentives in science. Scientists developing software in private sector have performance metrics layered on top. All of these are served first and anything else is a happy coincidence.

Go Up