I didn't want to derail the science quotes thread, but the notion that we should run society as science dictates is not a good one. Science knows no morality or ethics. Science will figure out the atom bomb, knowing it may well be used and even destroy humanity. It's worse when you consider eugenics and other things that would advance science but I think virtually all of us would find "wrong." The whole thing about morality and ethics is that they help us define right and wrong. So Science should be a guide, but you have to rule by some other means. Philosophy. Philosophy tells us we should care for the poor, educate our children, tax the rich moreso than the poor, and so on. Carry on.
science itself doesn't dictate anything. it's just a tool. neither does philosophy in any objective sense. you could say the question should humanity be destroyed or not is in the realm of philosophy (because the term "should" is too vague to have any scientific meaning). but we can empirically observe that humans (almost) universally do not wish humanity to be destroyed, and given that we equate nearly universal goals with what is objectively moral, we can empirically observe that it would be immoral to use the bomb because that's what might happen if we do. philosophy doesn't tell us any of those things. the reason we do them is because they all have empirically objective benefits that help us meet established goals.
Philosophy certainly determines what we perceive as right and wrong. Science would clone human beings. Moral ethicists are preventing it. You cannot empirically observe right and wrong. Those things are subject to change as peoples' views change.
A philosopher might say "beware the military industrial complex." A scientist might say "where do I apply for a grant?"
it absolutely does not. our sense of right and wrong emerges from evolution (and by extension emergent social convention/common sense). how we feel about the golden rule is not the result of some philosophical revelation. science isn't something that "would" do anything. it's just a tool. as usual your issue is with the way certain scientists act, not with science itself. you can't empirically observe something vague and undefined. if you define what right and wrong are you can certainly empirically observe them. the trouble with your argument here is philosophy doesn't define what we should and shouldn't do objectively any more than science does. their views aren't changing due to objective philosophical revelations.
No need to be so defensive. Science is just a tool, we agree. People follow where the science leads. Or we wouldn't be even talking or thinking about cloning human beings. You cannot empirically observe right and wrong. You have lawyers, judges, and politicians (philosophers) who determine those things. It is not so black and white, either. It's wrong to kill, but it's a capital crime to murder a cop or plan the murder while it's no crime at all for a soldier to shoot an enemy on the field of combat. There are many many times the number of philosophical "experiments" with hypotheses, observations, etc., than there are scientific ones. We observe they make laws against smoking pot yet people do, and we can count how many violate that law. That has NOTHING to do with science. That's one example. And that does suggest why peoples' views change - it's a silly law that nobody wants to obey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. (Science isn't any part of it, but philosophy is)
I'm in no way picking on Obama, but this article in Wired discusses a lot of the rhetoric I've seen in my lifetime. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/scintegrity/ In no uncertain terms, Obama signaled that the federal government would be guided by science, not the other way around. In offering a repudiation of the previous administration, he also promised a new era of transparency. ... [President Obama and this Congress] have already made the choice that they are going to fully support science and invest in science to the solve the big problems — health care, science, and education," said Dr. Stacie Propst, vice president of science policy and outreach at Research!America. "They are going to focus on a science-based economy for us." ... The memo also required that "the selection and retention of candidates for science and technology positions in the executive branch should be based on the candidate’s knowledge, credentials, experience and integrity." ... However, some observers said that it’s not always easy to separate politics from science, especially on hot-button issues like climate change or stem cell research. ... With most bioethicists "on the record" about the hot-button issues of cloning, embryonic stem cell research, genetic modification and euthanasia, it could be difficult to staff a committee in a balanced way. Particularly with regard to embryonic-stem-cell research, where the Obama administration has a clear-cut position, they could run into political trouble.
With all the quoting going on, i wanted to try and come up with one of my own. Go ahead, use it, love it. But always remember to say it's a quote from GOD.
you can after you define what is and isn't. the point is we are NOT defining what is right and wrong collectively through philosophy. individuals certainly do that, but whatever collective sense of objective morality exists emerges as a matter of practicality concerning shared goals and common sense, which in turn emerge from evolution. proposing a hypothesis and supporting its validity with observation IS science. that's overtly science. philosophy would be the study of what we should or shouldn't do independent of the observation of what people want. we don't think it would be immoral to euthanize unproductive elderly because it has been determined by philosophical analysis to be "evil" (whatever that means). we think it would be immoral to do that because almost all of us want to live as long as possible.
I was at my bank today; there was a short line. There was just one lady in front of me, an Asian lady who was trying to exchange yen for dollars. It was obvious she was a little irritated . . . She asked the teller, "Why it change? Yesterday, I get two hunat dolla of yen. Today I only get hunat eighty? Why it change?" The teller shrugged his shoulders and said, "Fluctuations." The Asian lady says, "Fluc you white people too"
We are defining what is right and wrong through philosophy. Natural Rights are not a scientific thing. Slavery is not. Taxation is not. Republican form of government s not. Progressivism is not. Socialism is not. Conservatism is not. Yet those philosophies define right and wrong. It evolves from gay is bad to gay is perfectly acceptable. The populace, by consensus determines society's morals. It's a vote kind of thing. Not science. Hypothesis and observation is not solely science's. it s not science to give a tax break for charitable donations and that the observed donations increase. It is a moral thing to encourage donations, oil exploration, feeding the poor, etc. We do euthanize the elderly. Science decides a person is too old to qualify for a heart transplant. Other societies, namely China, force sterilization or abortion for he good of the community. Our morals say it is evil, theirs say it is ultimately humane. The will to live longer isn't science either. It is a foundation of philosophies.
No. You can't even get on a waiting list without a scientist (doctor) making the application. The group that denies these requests are scientists, too. Edit: as opposed, say, to first come / first served or a lottery.
