1592

When DinoCon is doing more than the US Gov (thelemmy.club)

submitted 18 hours ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

171 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://nbcmontana.com/news/local/scientist-jack-horner-linked-to-jeffrey-epstein-in-newly-released-doj-files

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Phineaz@feddit.org -4 points 10 hours ago

Pardon, I know I worded it poorly, but what I meant with the Russia example is that the damage done to society is relatively minor by visiting the country or island of a criminal (though not null), while the gain for science could be huge. Somewhat similar to how journalists travel to war zones or occupied territories and comply with local authority such as the Taliban to report on important issues or abuse. They engage with a regime, but for an important reason.

I don't mind being wrong, I would like to understand the reasoning seemingly most people share in this case.

[-] Goodeye8@piefed.social 1 points 6 hours ago

It's a question of morality. Harry Harlow's experiments were also pretty influential, not just in science but in how we conduct science. The latter experiments are now widely considered unethical because they're absolutely sickening experiments bordering on torture. You can advance science but at what cost?

In case it needs to be made apparent, even most violent criminals draw the line at hurting children which is why in most prisons pedophiles end up separated from the rest the prison population. Associating with child rapists is so amoral even violent criminals don't want that shit. So yeah, strictly scientifically speaking you can go dig some fossils in a child rapists backyard. Morally speaking, don't be surprised when the rest of the scientific community doesn't want anything to do with you because you're so amoral you don't care about associating with a known child rapist.

[-] bampop@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

I'm a bit on the fence here, because the bar is being set at "corresponding with" rather than "associating with". Perhaps you need to get in touch with some government official or some billionaire to get something done, and someone you know knows a guy who could put you in touch with them, so you send that guy an email. You just corresponded with someone. Would you have done a thorough background check on the middle man before sending an email?

I mean, I don't know if these cases are like that or not, but corresponding with someone doesn't in itself imply any kind of affiliation or knowledge about the person you communicate with.

[-] AngryMob@lemmy.one 1 points 2 hours ago

We're talking about "elites" of society. So yes, you should do the bare minimum google search on the person you're emailing about getting in touch with a billionaire lol.

This isn't some small example where you were trying to get in touch with someone at your medical insurance agency and unknowingly wound up on the phone with a convicted rapist who made the local news...

[-] Phineaz@feddit.org 1 points 5 hours ago

To be clear: I don't know the paleontologist in question or what they did or didn't do. I don't even know my way around paleontology, aside from maybe the most basic education.

If I were in that position I really would prefer not to have to message this individual (or travel to Iran, or ...) to do some digging. And I understand being wary of someone who does. But I don't quite understand how that is placed on the pedestal as being friends or otherwise well acquainted with a know child molester and trafficker. Were they friends? Sure, avoid the scientist whenever possible.

But I do not see a fundamental wrong with asking nicely "Dear Mr., can I come and dig up your backyard because I think there are some important fossils?" Would it be wrong to dig up Charles Manson's back yard for that reason? State lands in Russa?