News

What if I'm straight and all about some brunch?

I think the point is, human discomfort shouldn't play a role in scientific reporting. Humans have projected a lot of human social elements (sex and gender roles, etc) onto animals and called it science, but it's not objective. If we are self censoring, we can't effectively share knowledge with others and we might miss important things down the line.

If cat cock upsets you, don’t look up duck dick.

Like a huge amount of animal sex is rape.

Pretty much all duck sex. Sometimes males will gang rape a female to death.

Like a huge amount of animal sex is rape.

The documentary on koalas I watched 2-3 decades ago was kind of traumatizing.

Like a huge amount of animal sex is rape.

Female garter snakes at the Narcisse Snake Dens in Manitoba would agree.

I think understanding one's own biases is not a problem. Ethics in science is currently a problem. Political lobbying affiliations and funding sources for studies should really be prominently displayed as well.

I disagree. For hundreds of years, illogical religious beliefs have biased science. People should have a right to know if scientists have religious beliefs so they can be weary of their agendas affecting the results. Many religious beliefs are obviously illogical and make no sense and if a scientist believes them, it does illuminate the likelihood of the accuracy of their results.

For many years "scientists" said homosexuality was caused by "mental illness" and then suddenly they decided it's not. There were entire scientific programs devoted to racist beliefs that were psuedoscientific and often impacted by religious views justifying racism. Of course religion biases science and is a problem in having unbiased research!

I don't think we should outlaw religious people from practicing science, but their views should at least be known so people can scrutinize their work more closely.

There's a mutualism there. Assholes promote religion as a way to get status and impunity. Religion promotes assholes because they're useful in manipulating populations raised to be asshole-like.

I don't think most people would consider their religion a conflict of interest. I would agree that it is for scientific research, and probably a whole lot of other things...

I interpreted it as "You hold beliefs that directly contradict the work you're performing, therefore, you have a bias that needs to be shown wasn't a factor in your research by having your research successfully replicated by those who do not share your bias."

A Crusade was never launched on behalf of science, people were never burned at the stake because of science, babies are not still being mutilated at birth against their will (circumcision or genital mutilation of young girls) because of science, and AIDs was not spread unchecked across the world due to government's lack of science.

It's religion, it ruins literally everything, especially science.

I don't read it as saying they're wrong. I read it as saying it's unreliable. If someone has a cacaine addiction, I'm not going to trust them to hold on to some crack and not use it. If they can prove themselves reliable then they may be trusted.

I don't think I agree with this person's opinion, but it's not what you said it was.