For science and peace

gentleshaid 3 years ago

What is currently going on in Ukraine is sad to watch. I try to stay away from politics as much as possible but it would be totally callous to turn a blind eye to the current event. Love and light to the Ukrainian folks.

0.23 VYB

7 votes

lemouth 3 years ago

I have always done the same, hiding and staying far. However, I think more and more that we need to act if we can.

Just continuing working as normal and collaborating with Russian institutions sounded totally incorrect to me. I thought really hard about it for a few days, and through several nights of sleep. Now, I made my decision which I wrote in the present post. I am confident my Russian colleagues will understand.

4 votes

gentleshaid 3 years ago

I agree. We can't just pretend like everything is fine when in reality, it is not

0.00 VYB

theabsolute 3 years ago

Every little bit helps. I imagine many Russian people are against this war, but are too afraid to speak out

lemouth 3 years ago

I totally agree with what you stated.

0.02 VYB

sciencevienna 3 years ago

Now we see how dependent and in what way science is usually bound to states and state funding; so far "free" and "open science"

6 votes

lemouth 3 years ago

I am not sure to understand your comment and how it relates to my message. I will try to bring some items to the discussion. Feel however free to react and elaborate. Thanks in advance!

Scientists are always bound to funding. That has always been the case and will always be. For what concerns fundamental science, public money is often the only existing option. This being said, we always have the possibility to choose on what we work and with who we collaborate. If tomorrow I want to switch gears and work in the domain of biophysics, I can do it. So whereas there is a connection with funding, science is still free.

Of course, this is different when we discuss specific projects with funding coming from the private sector. Here, it is more a standard boss-to-employee relation. And this is probably different when like in Russia the state tries to mess-up (the story of Sakharov is a good example). This is however not a generality (at least for now... we are still lucky somehow).

On the other hand, open science is very different as this concerns transparency (open access, etc.). I am unsure to see the relation with the topic.

Thanks for passing by! Please enjoy the end of the week-end!

5 votes

sciencevienna 3 years ago

Hey @lemouth,
sorry for having caused confusion at this point and I should have specified "fiatscience" which may also include privately funded research in corporate setting arrangements. As my projects are mainly cryptofunded (I'm probably also in a minority) I see -as Ludvig Fleck might have said- a certain style (not only referring to disciplines) shaping certain ways of "doing" science. As much as I've been a critic of science or R&D funded by industries, I also saw and made myself the experience how bureaucratic aparatus can destroy promising ideas and critics can turn into skeptics destroying entrepreneurship and helpful and promising projects that would have actually survived on a market (outside of academia), when state funded (maybe as a lack of understanding or lack of contacts to people being active in the field (practice?)). As you wrote yourself you are still "friends" with your colleagues and "decided to refuse to write any referee report on any scientific manuscript or project in which Russian institutes are involved.", regardless what stance those scientists working in those Russian institutes have on the conflict: They are obviously not free. In your last paragraph/sentence with your word "disagreement" you made clear what position and at the same time shed light on what kind of contradictions might be in place at this point. To give you an example: I was asked if I would give a talk on a podcast just last week and I gave the founder of the podcast who is Russian the possibility to explain himself, what his thoughts on all this are and I told him to take time off and care for his other relatives in Ukraine as well. We definitely will have a cooperation when he resolves his issues in private life. As you correctly mentioned the open letter against the war, on an individual/personal level looks different but there are those institutions and institutionalization tendencies (in your case) that make a collaboration impossible for you. At this point I question how good one can separate a professional life of a scientist and their activities on instiutional/public level, esp. now that Corona era put our professional activities into the homeoffice (if not being a researcher in a lab). When I said open I didn't refer to open access per se when it comes to publishing but rather questioning how open one can be as a scientist with his own opinion/experiences and what impact it has/did not have on science or the work that they are doing. We might have seen that ideologically induced science might have not worked or represent reality in a sound way but we have seen that dictatorships are not necessarily producing bad science. How open/accessible/democratic science in academia (in certain countries is/can be) might be a topic for a separate post and my first comment might have been too short to sensitize for words we are so (over)used to already. You said:

If tomorrow I want to switch gears and work in the domain of biophysics, I can do it. So whereas there is a connection with funding, science is still free.

And I'm curious if you would be able to switch to philosophy/philosophy of science/chemistry. Would you be free to switch to do science in a different way by refusing publishers or the very core of writing and express your research in artistic ways? Would you be still accepted among your colleagues as one of them or would there be another "public" emerge more interested and sharing a deeper understanding then in how you do science?

5 votes

bhoa 3 years ago

That's the spirit.

Contributing what you can.

You are fighting the war also. I wish I had so much influence to do something but unfortunately, I don't work with any Russian.

lemouth 3 years ago

As I said it elsewhere, I cannot really consider what I do as a fight, especially when Ukrainian people are getting bombed day after day. However, this is what my heart is telling me to do, and what I can do, today. Once in a while, it is good to follow our heart (says a super-rational person).

0.00 VYB

henryce 3 years ago

This is a great measure you have taken, I wish every other scientist will contribute to it, it will go a long way to cub this situation of things in Ukraine.

Just look at how most countries are supporting Ukraine with ammunition, I know they are trying to help, but all this can't have a way to peace.
I wish the world bodies can bargain to peace talk and seek for for peaceful settlement rather than supporting this conflicts in Ukraine in the form of help. (My opinion though)

lemouth 3 years ago

Many scientists actually do the same and make pressure on their institutions for official statements. Those are coming regularly, day after day. They are necessary building blocks for the path to peace.

Just look at how most countries are supporting Ukraine with ammunition, I know they are trying to help, but all this can't have a way to peace.

This is true. However, without providing weapons to Ukraine, peace will then come with the eradication of the Ukrainian people. This is by far not in agreement with my definition of the word "peace". If we do nothing, there won't indeed be any Ukraine anymore very soon. For that reason, even if providing weapons won't calm down the situation, this is very necessary. And believe me, it hurts me to write this.

I wish the world bodies can bargain to peace talk and seek for for peaceful settlement rather than supporting this conflicts in Ukraine in the form of help. (My opinion though)

In the meantime, the Ukrainian people is bombed day after day, and the targets are now civilian targets. Moreover, after accounting for the requests from Putin, I don't see how actual peace talks can just happen at all.

Please don't quote me wrong, I am all for peace. However, once all the boundary conditions in this conflict are consistently accounted for, I do not see how peace could be built quickly. My take is that this should not happen at the cost of getting rid of an entire people.

0.00 VYB

henryce 3 years ago

This is true. However, without providing weapons to Ukraine, peace will then come with the eradication of the Ukrainian people. This is by far not in agreement with my definition of the word "peace". If we do nothing, there won't indeed be any Ukraine anymore very soon. For that reason, even if providing weapons won't calm down the situation, this is very necessary. And believe me, it hurts me to write this.

I understand your points Sir,
All this is getting complicated day after day.

I'm looking as events unfolds along with time, but I hope for the best.
I just pray the end to all this come sooner than expected.
Just can stop feeling for Ukrainians, God help them.

lemouth 3 years ago

Yeah, this is a terrible situation... French president will make a speech tonight at 8:00 PM. The UK first man accused Russia of war crimes earlier today. Hmmm... Escalation continues... I am quite afraid TBH.

0.00 VYB

pfunk 3 years ago

All doors to Russia must be shut. Even if it doesn't directly affect Russian leadership. If all doors are shut, the Russian people will bring it to Putin and his henchmen. They know the responsibility rests on him.

2 votes

lemouth 3 years ago

I agree. Any single initiative won't affect Putin but all of them taken together may at some point (and hopefully will).

0.00 VYB

firstborn.pob 3 years ago

I just hope an end comes to this situation right now , cause to me it is becoming unbearable

6 votes

lemouth 3 years ago

I hope the same. War must end. However... who knows how and when... :/

4 votes

agmoore 3 years ago

Thank you @lemouth. I was getting my usual Monday collage and couldn't do anything except think about the war. We have to take a stand sometimes. This is one of those times.

I salute you and endorse your decision.

lemouth 3 years ago

Thanks for passing by. The situation is indeed terrible and the potential outcome is scary. Let's hope for the best (what else could we do?).

0.00 VYB

saintgentle 3 years ago

As a scientist, I decided today to stop all collaborations with any scientist working for a Russian institute. Additionally, I decided to refuse to write any referee report on any scientific manuscript or project in which Russian institutes are involved

I salute your courage sir. If everyone of us who feel the pang of the Ukrainians, will do what we can at our level to bring an end to this assault, peace will return to the troubled country sooner than we think but if we fold our hands helplessly, I am afraid, things can only get worse. We cannot wish away trouble, we must do what we can to put it out.

lemouth 3 years ago

Thanks for passing by and commenting out this blog!

I would like to mention that we cannot really call what I did "being courageous". The people in Ukraine are courageous. Russian showing publicly their disapproval of Putin are courageous. I only made a few public statements and signed a few petitions. That's easy compared with what locals did and are doing.

But yes, we must do as much as we can with the means that are ours.

0.00 VYB

lordemmy 3 years ago

The situation in Ukraine right now need divine help and I just hope everything becomes okay in day's to come, cause I don't know why people find Joy in Killing each other or proving supremacy via that

lemouth 3 years ago

Unfortunately, I have the impression it is getting worse and worse hour after hour... :/

0.00 VYB

yintercept 3 years ago

I always believed science could go beyond the various conflicts happening on the planet, and help to contribute to peace.

It sounds to me that you need to rethink "science."

Science is not a belief system. It is a method of inquiry. Yes, one can use the scientific method to investigate the outcomes of different belief systems, but science, in and of itself, does not lay the foundation of society.

In political science, politicians learn how to use the scientific method in their pursuit of political power.

A political scientist is a person who will study a population and figure out how to gain political power by pitting different groups against each other.

A political scientist judges the effect of his efforts by the amount of power his group garners in society.

Unfortunately, this game of political science creates deeply fractured communities.

In theory, Marxism is the application of science to economics and politics. The ideas is that mankind progresses through a scientifically predictable series of conflicts. So, the goal of the intelligentsia is to discover and lead the community through these conflicts. There ends up being a huge amount of bloodshed in this process.

You might want to read "The Blackbook of Communism" and "Death by Government." Both books tally up the hundreds of millions of people killed by this pseudo-science.

As for you decision to cut out all Russian scientists from your professional circle, I would like to point out that communication between people is probably the best way to ease international conflict.

I suspect that a primary reason that Putin engaged in this atrocity is because he, along with numerous Russians, felt isolated and put off by the West.

Science is just a method of inquiry. It is not a belief system. Numerous Russian scientists are engaged in the question of how to apply science in an effort to suppress Ukrainian nationalism. The best way to stop this nonsense is to get people to question the underlying belief system which led them to believe that such violence was a proper path forward.

Scientists tend to appreciate reason and are more prone to questioning underlying assumptions than the public at large. Including Russians in non-violent scientific inquiry positions peaceful elements in the scientific community to address the problems.

0.06 VYB

8 votes

lemouth 3 years ago

Oooh I think there as a big mis-understanding of what I meant. I should probably have been clearer. Let me explain.

To being with, I don't think I should rethink science. I meant "science" in the sense that it brings people from different horizons to work together and know each other better. It allows some to learn about other cultures. In this sense, it drives peace. This is the only point I wanted to raise. Nothing more and nothing less.

As for you decision to cut out all Russian scientists from your professional circle, I would like to point out that communication between people is probably the best way to ease international conflict.

I agree. This is the reason why I have said that I will cease institutional communications. At the private level, this is a different story and I will continue to exchange with my colleagues as done up to now. This is one of the few existing ways to introduce and share information outside the official circles by the way. Moreover, my colleagues are probably among the best informed people in Russia as they have access to external sources of information. They are those standing up against the current regime, and need to be supported.

I hope this clarifies. Cheers!

0.02 VYB

beerlover 3 years ago

^{View or trade BEER.}

Hey @lemouth, here is a little bit of BEER from @yintercept for you. Enjoy it!

Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your BEER.

0.00 VYB

yintercept 3 years ago

Good things can happen in any field where people communicate with each other on a personal level. It can happen in science, business, travel and even religion.

People who develop relations across borders are often in a position to ease tensions on both sides of the border.

Each of the subjects that I mentioned is a double-edged sword. People who use these disciplines to concentrate power can created intractable divisions that lead to war.

Science, in and of itself, does not lead to peace any more than religion, in and of itself, lead to peace.

One has to look at the way that things are applied.

Moreover, my colleagues are probably among the best informed people in Russia as they have access to external sources of information. They are those standing up against the current regime, and need to be supported.

Scientists are often the agents of peace because they are informed. A good scientists understands both the benefits and dangers of modern technologies and actively pursue the best use of technologies.

The tendency of the scientific community towards peace comes from the character of the scientist.

!BEER

0.06 VYB

3 votes

lemouth 3 years ago

Science, in and of itself, does not lead to peace any more than religion, in and of itself, lead to peace.

This is true. The shortcut I took is probably abusive. Science only contributes in the way it may help different people to know each other better. And this contribution to peace is probably (very) small. It is however non zero (at least in my opinion).

Scientists are often the agents of peace because they are informed. A good scientists understands both the benefits and dangers of modern technologies and actively pursue the best use of technologies.
The tendency of the scientific community towards peace comes from the character of the scientist.

Additionally, I must admit that the big game changer is definitely what you raised at the end of your previous comment. I didn't think about it initially, but it is true that a (good) scientist can assess pros, cons and the global situation from the very nature of their job.

Thanks for your valuable replies to this post!

0.02 VYB