I don’t see social consequences as being inherently part of the research findings themselves, but rather an [Insert Unknown Explanation] process within humans that react in certain ways to the publications. My model classes research findings as “information”, input to the human-machine that will do some arcane computation and output negative social consequences when there is no prior function for correctly interpreting that input.
It is true, however, that the human mental structure and the findings interact in a very causal way that ought not to be ignored. On that we seem to agree. I find myself mentally emphasizing, however, the perceived fact that it is humans that have the greater part in this chain of causality. The same research findings given to a population of superintelligent ants, aliens, AIs or rocks would obviously not carry the same causal meaning. Because of this, I assign the “perpetuation of patriarchy” to the observer rather than the finding, for the same reasons the alien monster would not kidnap sexy torn-dress white women because of some inherent sexiness property of the women.
I guess I’m quite touchy on proper assignment of properties, and it’s sort of a mental reflex by now to double-check those assignments.
I think you’re wasting both of our time by pondering the implications of sexist research on ants.
Rationality means winning, and winning means thinking like reality. If the actual outcome of research in the real world (which, yes, means humans will be consuming the research) is not foremost in your mind when considering research, your map is dangerously far from the territory.
I don’t see social consequences as being inherently part of the research findings themselves, but rather an [Insert Unknown Explanation] process within humans that react in certain ways to the publications. My model classes research findings as “information”, input to the human-machine that will do some arcane computation and output negative social consequences when there is no prior function for correctly interpreting that input.
It is true, however, that the human mental structure and the findings interact in a very causal way that ought not to be ignored. On that we seem to agree. I find myself mentally emphasizing, however, the perceived fact that it is humans that have the greater part in this chain of causality. The same research findings given to a population of superintelligent ants, aliens, AIs or rocks would obviously not carry the same causal meaning. Because of this, I assign the “perpetuation of patriarchy” to the observer rather than the finding, for the same reasons the alien monster would not kidnap sexy torn-dress white women because of some inherent sexiness property of the women.
I guess I’m quite touchy on proper assignment of properties, and it’s sort of a mental reflex by now to double-check those assignments.
I think you’re wasting both of our time by pondering the implications of sexist research on ants.
Rationality means winning, and winning means thinking like reality. If the actual outcome of research in the real world (which, yes, means humans will be consuming the research) is not foremost in your mind when considering research, your map is dangerously far from the territory.