Excellent. It must be hard for scientists but science must be defended by everyone including scientists who are in a position to explain the significance of those interfering with conspiracy theories.
Dear Kit Yates, Fiona Fox is anti-science herself. She long campaigned for the notorious Pace Trial, a treatment of graded exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy for ME/CFS patients. Please see David Tuller's article about this:
Your post, and Curry's letter, implicitly endorses the politicisation and moralisation of science. Because we all know that an FRS is an honour given for scientific/technological achievements, not for promotion of values. For an alternative view, read my post linked below.
The institutionalized norm of “universalism” prohibits the consideration of personal, social, and moral characteristics of scientists in assessing the validity and quality of their scientific work.
Marie Curie was ostracized for immoral behavior—an affair with a married man (Langevin) following the tragic death of her husband Pierre Curie. The chair of the Nobel Prize committee, Svante Arrhenius, wrote to her advising that she not attend the official ceremony for her Nobel Prize in Chemistry in view of her questionable moral standing. Curie replied that she would be present at the ceremony, because ‘the prize has been given to her for her discovery of polonium and radium’ and that ‘there is no relation between her scientific work and the facts of her private life.’
In doing so, she reaffirmed the fundamental principle of universalism—by declaring that she “cannot accept the principle that the appreciation of the scientific value of [her] work could be influenced by libel and slander concerning [her] private life.”
What you are trying to do goes against everything science stands for. I hope the Royal Society rejects any demands to sanction Musk. Anything else would be a shameful capitulation.
Besides, values mean different things to different people. An expectation of Fellows giving due regard to values at best suggests they should consider these values as they understand them. It does not imply they should endorse a particular version of it. When you say Musk has broken the Code, you really mean he has not acted in line with your particular set of political beliefs.
Excellent. It must be hard for scientists but science must be defended by everyone including scientists who are in a position to explain the significance of those interfering with conspiracy theories.
Dear Kit Yates, Fiona Fox is anti-science herself. She long campaigned for the notorious Pace Trial, a treatment of graded exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy for ME/CFS patients. Please see David Tuller's article about this:
https://virology.ws/2022/06/04/trial-by-error-science-media-centre-chief-compares-patient-advocates-to-nazis/
Trial By Error: Science Media Centre Chief Fiona Fox Compares ME/CFS Patient Advocates to Nazis
Your post, and Curry's letter, implicitly endorses the politicisation and moralisation of science. Because we all know that an FRS is an honour given for scientific/technological achievements, not for promotion of values. For an alternative view, read my post linked below.
The institutionalized norm of “universalism” prohibits the consideration of personal, social, and moral characteristics of scientists in assessing the validity and quality of their scientific work.
Marie Curie was ostracized for immoral behavior—an affair with a married man (Langevin) following the tragic death of her husband Pierre Curie. The chair of the Nobel Prize committee, Svante Arrhenius, wrote to her advising that she not attend the official ceremony for her Nobel Prize in Chemistry in view of her questionable moral standing. Curie replied that she would be present at the ceremony, because ‘the prize has been given to her for her discovery of polonium and radium’ and that ‘there is no relation between her scientific work and the facts of her private life.’
In doing so, she reaffirmed the fundamental principle of universalism—by declaring that she “cannot accept the principle that the appreciation of the scientific value of [her] work could be influenced by libel and slander concerning [her] private life.”
What you are trying to do goes against everything science stands for. I hope the Royal Society rejects any demands to sanction Musk. Anything else would be a shameful capitulation.
Besides, values mean different things to different people. An expectation of Fellows giving due regard to values at best suggests they should consider these values as they understand them. It does not imply they should endorse a particular version of it. When you say Musk has broken the Code, you really mean he has not acted in line with your particular set of political beliefs.
https://hxstem.substack.com/p/the-royal-society-at-a-crossroads
Spot on