You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles
- Thread starter jj
- Start date
CFLarsen said:This:
"Mine simply makes plain the bad in science, and blames it on science as a process"
That is not me saying I don't like the scientific process, but just pointing out that there are examples of bad in science. Nowhere will you find a quote by me saying I don't like the scientific process. You will find me saying I don't like the bad in it.
But what, in the scientific process, is so bad about hydrogen bombs?
Their use! They were specifically designed to be used, to be the most destructive and powerful weapons ever. It is a real Faustian bargain.
And what about Tuskegee? Observing people suffer from syphilis in the name of medical science. Not actually treating the patients. Humans used as lab animals. It doesn't get much worse than that.
jzs said:
You posed the following question to me
"which one used it?"
(referring to the bomb)
I don't know the answer to your question. Will you tell us?
[/B]
Neither.
And Tuskegee was an abuse by politicians, in particular, too. Hello? You know, just like the stuff we see now, with politicians requiring rewrites of measurement data to "keep on message"?
I suppose I should add that the whole point, coming from a secular viewpoint, wherein religion is nothing but the product of mankind's mind, is that religion gets abused more than science.
It's really low of you to bring up Tuskegee. That was appalling, and it came out of politics and racism, and you knew that when you asked. It had nothing to do with the scientific method.
jzs said:Their use! They were specifically designed to be used, to be the most destructive and powerful weapons ever. It is a real Faustian bargain.
And what about Tuskegee? Observing people suffer from syphilis in the name of medical science. Not actually treating the patients. Humans used as lab animals. It doesn't get much worse than that.
But neither has anything to do with the scientific process itself.
jj said:
And Tuskegee was an abuse by politicians, in particular, too.
Please name these politicians.
The fact is that it was a scientific study, and experiment, to see what happens when you don't treat syphilis.
It's really low of you to bring up Tuskegee. That was appalling, and it came out of politics and racism, and you knew that when you asked.
You claim to know what I knew at that time. You should apply for the 1 Million Dollar prize.
It had nothing to do with the scientific method.
On the contrary. It is a prime example of medical science gone wrong.
CFLarsen said:But neither has anything to do with the scientific process itself.
The scientific process led to plutonium bombs and hydrogen bombs, everything from the theory behind them to their construction.
The scientific process was an absolutely essential part in creating them.
jzs said:The scientific process led to plutonium bombs and hydrogen bombs, everything from the theory behind them to their construction.
The scientific process was an absolutely essential part in creating them.
Religion led to the crusades and the inquisition.
Your point?
Was it not humans that did the lot?
It seems quite clear that you're determined to blame science for its misuse.
Science, at least unlike religion, does not beg for misuse.
jzs said:On the contrary. It is a prime example of medical science gone wrong.
Really? Because you say so, it's a fact?
Look, you're simply divorced from reality at this point.
You argue that southern bigotry, unethical researchers, and indifferent politicians and political appointees had nothing to do with this, that they did not formulate this abuse, that somehow, rather, it grew out of science?
That's absurd. Nonsense, stuff and nonsense.
jj said:Religion led to the crusades and the inquisition.
Your point?
Was it not humans that did the lot?
It seems quite clear that you're determined to blame science for its misuse.
Ultimately humans do everything, so blaming everything on humans is basically a cop out.
I'll blame religion too for bad things it has led to, sure. I just don't shy away in putting blame on science for the bad things it has led to.
Science, at least unlike religion, does not beg for misuse.
Except making bombs and doing poor medical studies, apparently.
jj said:Really? Because you say so, it's a fact?
No, because the Tuskegee syphilis study is an actual example of medical science gone wrong.
Look, you're simply divorced from reality at this point.
That is just ad hominem.
You argue that southern bigotry, unethical researchers, and indifferent politicians and political appointees had nothing to do with this, that they did not formulate this abuse, that somehow, rather, it grew out of science?
First, I never said "nothing to do" with it. Medical research, however, was the primary factor.
Second, I've already requested of you to name actual politicians that you claim have some responsibility here.
Yes, Tuskegee was a scientific experiment to study the effects of not treating syphilis. It was using humans as lab rats. I do agree about the unethical part. Yes, I guess sometimes science is not ethical. In fact, that is why ethical systems were put in place after Tuskegee.
T'ai Chi,
Ethics is not part of the scientific process. In science, you cannot decide what the result should be.
It is up to people to decide what to do with the results. It's a political decision, a human rights decision, if you like. But science in itself takes no sides, it merely finds out what is real.
What do you suggest that we change in the scientific process, so we can avoid these bad things in the future?
Ethics is not part of the scientific process. In science, you cannot decide what the result should be.
It is up to people to decide what to do with the results. It's a political decision, a human rights decision, if you like. But science in itself takes no sides, it merely finds out what is real.
What do you suggest that we change in the scientific process, so we can avoid these bad things in the future?
CFLarsen said:T'ai Chi,
Ethics is not part of the scientific process. In science, you cannot decide what the result should be.
It is up to people to decide what to do with the results. It's a political decision, a human rights decision, if you like. But science in itself takes no sides, it merely finds out what is real.
What do you suggest that we change in the scientific process, so we can avoid these bad things in the future?
Are you telling me jzs is formerly WhoChi? WhoChi was usually a little more baldly nonsensical.
It is clear that jzs, whoever it is, is determined to apply one standard to religion and a much stricter standard to science. The implicit dishonesty there does show the anti-science and anti-US-Constitution attitude very clearly.
I wonder if this is one of those constitutional recontructionists who want to turn the USA into a religious state that we're dealing with here?
If it is WhoChi, I have to go reset my ignore list. Some people are obviously dishonest trolls. I admit that jzs was working his way there anyhow, but some people are best "laid down and avoided".
jj said:Are you telling me jzs is formerly WhoChi?
Pattern recognition.
CFLarsen said:
Ethics is not part of the scientific process. In science, you cannot decide what the result should be.
I'm sorry, I came in on this late.... Claus, are you sure you want to say this? I've spent too many hours preparing reports for various "Human Subjects Committee" and similar stuff to let this pass by. A very important part of the scientific process as it is currently practiced involves a number of important ethical aspects -- for example, informed consent, risk management, non-coersion, et cetera.
More generally, there are a number of widely acknowledged ethical norms that are central to scientific inquiry. Don't falsify data, don't cherry-pick from the experimental findings, publish your results, acknowledge sources, et cetera. You can find massive tomes detailing the rise and fall of the psychologist Cyril Burt for exactly this sort of ethical violation; it's now almost to the point that no reputable journal will permit you to cite him, because his data cannot be trusted. He has been excommunicated from the practitioners of "science," and We Do Not Speak His Name.
By modern ethical standards (and part of the reason those standards exist and often have the force of law), the Tuskegee study should never have happened. This has nothing to do with the findings or lack thereof. It's a simple statement of what Scientists Don't Do. So there was an obvious process failure at some point, where someone said "let's do this!" and someone else, who should have said "Hell, no!" didn't.
And I see no reason to assume that the second person, the one who failed at his job, was not wearing a lab coat at the time....
jj said:
It is clear that jzs, whoever it is, is determined to apply one standard to religion and a much stricter standard to science.
No, not really.
I was just pointing out that it is entirely fair and sensical that if we can say "religion led to..." then we can say "science led to...". Some people don't seem to lay any blame on science itself, but rather shift it to the politicians or another group. However, when it comes to religion, they place the load of the blame on religion itself.
I wonder if this is one of those constitutional recontructionists who want to turn the USA into a religious state that we're dealing with here?
Um, how about "No."
new drkitten said:A very important part of the scientific process as it is currently practiced involves a number of important ethical aspects -- for example, informed consent, risk management, non-coersion, et cetera.
I agree new drkitten.
Webster's defines ethics as:
1 ...the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation 2 a: a set of moral principles and values b: a theory or system of moral values c: the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group
and it is the bolded sense that we are talking about, while Claus seems to be talking about 1. He can correct me if I am wrong.
There are also cases where ethical issues are studied by science (for example in cases of discrimination studies where we can analyze data to determine it), and in many psychological studies, so ethics can be a part of science in this respect too.
new drkitten said:I'm sorry, I came in on this late.... Claus, are you sure you want to say this? I've spent too many hours preparing reports for various "Human Subjects Committee" and similar stuff to let this pass by. A very important part of the scientific process as it is currently practiced involves a number of important ethical aspects -- for example, informed consent, risk management, non-coersion, et cetera.
More generally, there are a number of widely acknowledged ethical norms that are central to scientific inquiry. Don't falsify data, don't cherry-pick from the experimental findings, publish your results, acknowledge sources, et cetera. You can find massive tomes detailing the rise and fall of the psychologist Cyril Burt for exactly this sort of ethical violation; it's now almost to the point that no reputable journal will permit you to cite him, because his data cannot be trusted. He has been excommunicated from the practitioners of "science," and We Do Not Speak His Name.
By modern ethical standards (and part of the reason those standards exist and often have the force of law), the Tuskegee study should never have happened. This has nothing to do with the findings or lack thereof. It's a simple statement of what Scientists Don't Do. So there was an obvious process failure at some point, where someone said "let's do this!" and someone else, who should have said "Hell, no!" didn't.
And I see no reason to assume that the second person, the one who failed at his job, was not wearing a lab coat at the time....
Let me clarify: What you are listing is not what I see as ethics - all that is part and parcel of the scientific process. They are safeguards more than ethics.
When I say ethics, I mean e.g. that you can't stop researching genetics, merely because it might be used for genocide. You can't stop researching physics, merely because it might be used for nuclear bombs.