tobychev @tobychev@qoto.org

@kallekn
the_ins_ru har video på Twitter, taget inifrån och visar folk som skjuts på väldigt nära håll, kollade inte på hela klippet

@gwagner
I'm pretty sure you are being sarcastic, but I feel the need to ask anyway: do you think the linked report is good news?

@NatureMC
Thank you for the points about religious studies versus theology, you are of course correct that it is the field of religious study that is most relevant here.

But my core point is that there is no such thing as a human scientist that is *free* of ideologies (religious or otherwise), the best we can do is human scientists that are conscious of their own ideologies and able to mitigate that influence on their scientific work.

And from there follows quickly that the practicing scientist should get taught something about all the ideologies they likely carry inside them or will encounter one day, so that when something like Tescreal shows up from outside it is promptly recognised for what it is.
@franco_vazza @hfalcke @spacegeck

@NatureMC
Well, I'm not talking about preventing bad actors from coming up with seductive ideas, I'm talking about making sure the community has the tools to recognise the bad actors early enough to prevent widespread damage.
@hfalcke @franco_vazza @spacegeck

@NatureMC
No, from the example of transhumanism it is pretty clear to me that theology itself is what's needed.

And I don't think people really object to including ethics in general, the fight is always over *which set* of ethical principles.
@hfalcke @franco_vazza @spacegeck

@franco_vazza
ok, so let me say it like this: theology can have some place in the scientific enterprise (meaning the whole social structure with schools and funding agencies and the public begging for inspiration) in the same way that history of science has a place, as it informs us about the social realities that birthed the theoretical structure we use and study

This is not to say theology has a place within the theory itself, I'm not saying we should put god into hydrodynamics*, rather I mean that it's useful if at least some practitioners know how to recognise when speculation about what we could do in the future is actually just poorly remembered bits of the book of revelation (or whichever it is, I've never studied, I just get it by osmosis).

*supply your own joke about magnetic fields here.
@hfalcke @spacegeck @NatureMC

@franco_vazza
Did you read down to the example of what happens when scientists soeculate about the future without theological training? They just reinvented theological stories on their own, didn't realise it, and now Musk is super popular for being "rational".

I guess I see your point, if you accept the restriction that scientists should *never* speculate about the future of society in their role as scientists.

I don't think it's a very usual restriction, because the public is more likely to not see the difference between the vulgar and filthy 🤢speculation🤢and the pure and truthful ✨science✨. But I will happily admit this is an argument from resigned pragmatism and not pure principle.
@hfalcke @spacegeck @NatureMC

@rmathematicus
Good luck Thony! Hope you get to stay your full three weeks successfully this time, and that you come out stronger!

@PaulGrahamRaven
Sounds interesting but after reading the abstract I wonder if you have a more vulgar version of the same ideas, I don't really have the stamina for quite that many 50 word sentences in a row...

@hfalcke
Maybe there is this synthesis position to bridge you two: Theology has its place in all the sciences, but in Astronomy the big debates have already happened and passed into the canonical history of the field, so the remaining space is very small.

As an example what happens when you have a new field, but there is low theological literacy among its actors, consider the transhumanism movement in computer science: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23779413/silicon-valleys-ai-religion-transhumanism-longtermism-ea

In summary: you always risk people doing theology when they start speculating about the future of the field, and its good if at least some of the actors can recognise that's what they are doing.
@franco_vazza @spacegeck @NatureMC

@araneida
Ett par år in på mina studier gick mitt Universitet över till bokstavsbetyg pga "Bologna processen", någon EU harmoniseringsgrej.