Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

My charitable interpretation is that Nature is just reminding the academic community that you can’t research social constructs because they’re all made up and the points don’t matter, use more “scientific” terms, plz.

But then why write what was wrote? Why build up a “science can be socially harmful” thesis and then argue that may and could should govern is and does? Science should always be accurate. Nature didn't just learn this, that’s been the status quo all along.

The only reasonable interpretation is that Nature is defending a change.

To your example: you don't need social constructs to explain the replication crisis (“studies that leverage socially constructed ideas can be replicable). You don’t need social harm either (non-replicable studies that are socially good exist).

You said it best yourself: if you assume the worst interpretation possible, you can be offended by anything.

Nature is asking researchers to assume the worst interpretation of their results and, if it would be socially harmful, please not to publish them. And BTW you were wrong to ask the question in the first place since social constructs are post modern and reject western liberal interrogation.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: