I have a question about limits. I personally knew a murderer. He was in my field. Never repented for his murders. He kept writing and publishing technical papers even after his incarceration. I do not know whether anybody complained or what happened to these papers in the end. I would refuse to review or collaborate with this person. What do you think? For the record, I would not "cancel" anybody for minor transgressions especially when the person repented and reformed. On the other hand, there is a principle in law called the thin skull rule: you are liable if you simply patted a person on the head but this person's skull broke because it was very thin!
I think people of course should be free to choose to collaborate with whomever they wish and not collaborate with whomever they wish. But they shouldn't be allowed to punish others for making different choices, not enforce rules that say that those people, or the alleged perpetrators cannot do science.
I agree. I would add that those who choose not to collaborate should not be punished/criticized either. But one has to be brave to collaborate with someone who killed his collaborators!
Well, I'm not sure how I'd feel about that. Locked up, they wouldn't be a personal danger to collaborate with if it was worth pursuing, however, if the murders were work related, not sure I'd want to take the chance they might get out some day and perform an encore...
Hey Dr. Krauss, sorry to use this forum...and I know you’ve been plenty busy...any idea when the next Q&A will be for supporters? I have some questions! 😂
xWell, this is not suprising though very alarming. It seems to me this is bigger than just peoples' behavior re: who to collaborate with on scientific research but an assault on the scientific process period. There are far too many people out there closed off to the open debate/discussion/exploration that true science is. How else does science work towards an ever more expansive understanding of our universe? I'm sure some thought Einstein was a nut back when but if he were here today it wouldn't be surprising to see people cancelling him because he dared to question what had been considered 'settled' science. Scientists who value the scientific process better push back hard on this kind of behavivor unless they are OK with the ever encroaching rule of the Twitter/X mob. The mob unchecked can and will turn on anyone.
I don’t know academic protocol in higher learning but in grade school there was a grading category in deportment, is there an equivalent evaluation that is made at the college/ grad school level?
Say at least three teachers made the independent evaluation that a student would benefit from a coping skills class as a requirement to continue, might that help?
There should be options open to all for resolving issues, at present it seems kinda one sided.
It’s sad to think social skills need to be taught at higher academic levels but if it would help?
Unfortunately "X Teapot Tempest" just doesn't have the same xing...
But seriously, I really don't understand why rational discussion seems to have left the building. I am friends with many people, with beliefs that sometimes majorly conflict with my own and/or others in our circle, that doesn't prevent us from being friends, or discussing things, which is as it should be.
However, there are those, more frequently younger, who have cut ties without dialogue if anyone dares to disagree, it's really discouraging.
Has the concept of maturity permanently left the building?
When did disagreements in discussions become so personalized, so polarized? When did guilt by association become a thing?
Nobody agrees with all of their friends, acquaintances, coworkers 100% of the time. (damn but that would be soooooo.... boring at the very least)
I have sometimes thought a course in good manners, diplomatic conversational tactics and coping strategies should be a core requirement in schools.
How can this lack of basic social skills be addressed rationally?
I have a question about limits. I personally knew a murderer. He was in my field. Never repented for his murders. He kept writing and publishing technical papers even after his incarceration. I do not know whether anybody complained or what happened to these papers in the end. I would refuse to review or collaborate with this person. What do you think? For the record, I would not "cancel" anybody for minor transgressions especially when the person repented and reformed. On the other hand, there is a principle in law called the thin skull rule: you are liable if you simply patted a person on the head but this person's skull broke because it was very thin!
I think people of course should be free to choose to collaborate with whomever they wish and not collaborate with whomever they wish. But they shouldn't be allowed to punish others for making different choices, not enforce rules that say that those people, or the alleged perpetrators cannot do science.
I agree. I would add that those who choose not to collaborate should not be punished/criticized either. But one has to be brave to collaborate with someone who killed his collaborators!
"...murders...?" Plural?
Yes. Multiple murders in single occasion. Work-relared. In Canada.
Well, I'm not sure how I'd feel about that. Locked up, they wouldn't be a personal danger to collaborate with if it was worth pursuing, however, if the murders were work related, not sure I'd want to take the chance they might get out some day and perform an encore...
because of the nature of the crimes, collaborating would be an affirmation of his belief that he was right to kill them.
Well that's a definite no then (with the caveat that there may be a few extreme occasions when killing coworkers - Nazi Germany - might be justified).
Hey Dr. Krauss, sorry to use this forum...and I know you’ve been plenty busy...any idea when the next Q&A will be for supporters? I have some questions! 😂
xWell, this is not suprising though very alarming. It seems to me this is bigger than just peoples' behavior re: who to collaborate with on scientific research but an assault on the scientific process period. There are far too many people out there closed off to the open debate/discussion/exploration that true science is. How else does science work towards an ever more expansive understanding of our universe? I'm sure some thought Einstein was a nut back when but if he were here today it wouldn't be surprising to see people cancelling him because he dared to question what had been considered 'settled' science. Scientists who value the scientific process better push back hard on this kind of behavivor unless they are OK with the ever encroaching rule of the Twitter/X mob. The mob unchecked can and will turn on anyone.
I’m not sure that would help.
I don’t know academic protocol in higher learning but in grade school there was a grading category in deportment, is there an equivalent evaluation that is made at the college/ grad school level?
Say at least three teachers made the independent evaluation that a student would benefit from a coping skills class as a requirement to continue, might that help?
There should be options open to all for resolving issues, at present it seems kinda one sided.
It’s sad to think social skills need to be taught at higher academic levels but if it would help?
"Twitter Teapot Tempest" ROTFL Perfect.
Unfortunately "X Teapot Tempest" just doesn't have the same xing...
But seriously, I really don't understand why rational discussion seems to have left the building. I am friends with many people, with beliefs that sometimes majorly conflict with my own and/or others in our circle, that doesn't prevent us from being friends, or discussing things, which is as it should be.
However, there are those, more frequently younger, who have cut ties without dialogue if anyone dares to disagree, it's really discouraging.
Has the concept of maturity permanently left the building?
When did disagreements in discussions become so personalized, so polarized? When did guilt by association become a thing?
Nobody agrees with all of their friends, acquaintances, coworkers 100% of the time. (damn but that would be soooooo.... boring at the very least)
I have sometimes thought a course in good manners, diplomatic conversational tactics and coping strategies should be a core requirement in schools.
How can this lack of basic social skills be addressed rationally?
you hit the nail on the head. childishness prevails. Saying "Grow up", which is urgently needed, is unthinkable, and would probably lead to firing.