Simply cleaning up the gene pool.
My quotes, The Ryan responses:
False
True.
Don’t your second and third points contradict each other? Either science bends itself to political pressure, or it is totally unconcerned with political implications, one or the other. And the fact is, it the latter. While individual scientists may get imnvloved [sic] in political issues, science itself is apolitical. Did Social Darwinism support fascism? Yes. Was Social Darwinism a science? No. Was it inspired by science? Yes. So what? Astrology was inspired by astronomy. That doesn’t make astrology a science.
**
[/QUOTE]
No, The Ryan the above are not contradictory points. You can give a stamp of approval to heinous acts and actions, without giving a care about the consenquences of such actions, nor care about the victims of your approval. The Nazi Party members were ‘just doing their duty’, remember?
Avalongod said:
The original studies have been pretty well shoved aside. Newer studies have suggested that it’s maybe possible that the brain might maybe get some radiation (not of the radioactive type – more like microwaves) from frequent use of cell phones, and there has been a recommendation that kids not use them a lot. But I would worry a lot more about deaths caused by people using cell phones while trying to drive.
David B:
Thanx for the clarification, though I wasn’t exactly losing sleep over the whole thing. 
Someone mentioned science as a whole is apolotical. This a bit of a naive view. Science, like most things invented by humans, tends to follow human social agendas. Simply in choosing what to study, for example, Western science focuses on those things which are important to us Westerners. On a more micro level, much of science is funded through governmental and military sources, so yes political parties do get heavily involved. But on a macro level, science itself tends to be…well, political is not the right word, but often dogmatic. I am not sure if you were trying to make a distinction.
capacitator:
How about this: You, as a scientist, develop a gas. This gas can kill things relatively quickly. You envision it as a humane way of putting down animals, and amounts of this gas dissolved in water can kill weeds very well. You print your results. You patent it, and the highly efficient process you developed to make this gas from very common raw materials. Patents are interesting beasts: If a process is patented, it is public information as far as anyone can look it up. Patents also protect your claim to the process as far as nobody else can use it to make a product legally. Humans being humans, some half-brain Christian Fundie uses your process to gas a synagogue. Are you in any way responsible for those deaths? Did you for an instant forsee your gas being used for evil purposes? Should you be prosecuted for your actions? After all, you gave your sayso to the production of the gas and the patenting of the process.
Derleth, the scientist, if he were conscientious, would see to it that only veterinarians and labs would have legal access to the gas. He would put explicit warnings that it may harm people, just as many other chemicals made (should) have such warnings. As the scientist patented it, if someone else makes it, without his permission, it is illegal. And, if he were conscientious, he would feel some guilt if the product was used in a terroristic attack even after all these safegards. However, in this case, he should not feel guilty that someone would be hell-bent on using the gas for such a purpose. He made the safegards in the hope that it wouldn’t happen.
What I am concerned is legal misuse of science.
Just an aside, what is with this Christian stuff? I have never been baptized as a Christian, so I am not one.
Must you see attacks in even the irrelevant parts of example scenarios? I used that particular one because it was the first thing that popped into my head.
OK, you tell me something. How in the world would a scientist ‘ensure’ that a chemical is only used in a certain way? That’s the government’s job, and the job of various private regulatory bodies. Scientists can make recommendations as to use, and I think a specific use must be stated to get something patented, but those words are non-binding. And how would a private individual (in my argument, the scientist is a private individual) go about seeing that only certain groups get the gas? Again, the government’s job. Scientists just don’t have that much control once their invention is out there, and attacking them for not using control they don’t have is wrong.
Einstein had something to say about Hitler and his misuse of science/scientists. By the 1930’s Einstein was a world reknowned scientist, he was also a German Jew who fled Nazi Germany for America. To discredit Einstein and Jews in general, Hitler had 100 German scientists sign an affidavit debunking the theory of relativity. Einstein’s only comment on the affidavit was, “If I was wrong, it would only take one”. That is, if a bad scientific theory is advanced, other scientists have a duty to refute the theory point by point. Once one reputable scientist has refuted a theory and not himself been refuted the topic is dropped and science moves on. Thus, as soon as Social Darwinism was thoroughly refuted by one reputable scientist the whole matter was closed to science. Whatever may have happened after that point in regard to the use or misuse of a refuted theory is not a matter for scientific study or debate, it is a matter for political debate.
Avalongod: I think you are confusing the scientific method and science itself with human beings who are scientists.
Scientists are human, with all the fallibilities attached to human nature. They may be funded by the military or by companies with agendas. Science is apolitical. Results are results, and stand on their own with no moral leanings.
Einstein once said: “As long as we remain with the realm of science proper, we never meet with a sentence of the type ‘Thou shalt not lie’ … Scientific statements of facts and relations … cannot produce ethical directives.”
(As quoted by Peter Singer in A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution and Cooperation.
So, for example, the scientists who discovered nuclear fission found facts. Those facts could be put to use in nuclear power or nuclear bombs. We cannot say that nuclear bombs are bad, therefore fission is bad. Fission just is.
David B:
I agree with your distinction between the scientific method and human scientists. My feelings however are, given that science in the real world is composed of emotional imperfect humans, that the practical version of science never lives up to the “scientific method” ideal. I am not trying to bash science (its what I do…psychology actually), just be “realistic” if you will.
I had a professor once who said that science is essentially “essays with numbers” which I thought was pretty on target. Slowly, some of those essays turn out to be correct, and science advances.
but given that scientists are brought up in societies, are invested in those societies, and often funded by those societies, I am not convinced that science is “neutral” I have always kinda thought of this as a myth scientists propagate in order to have some moral upper ground.
For example I wonder if, borrowing your example, nuclear fission would ever have been discovered had no government taken an interest in it? Also regarding ethical directions, if I remember (and I may be wrong) did not both Einstein and Oppenheimer vehemently and vocally oppose the nuclear weapons program (even though Oppenheimer was originally funded by it).
Also consider the unlikelihood to find “neutral” medical researchers, given all the money that is flying around in that field.
Granted, coming from psychology, more of the “results” DO have moral implications (remember the bell curve?) than say, chemistry perhaps. But I wonder if the choice scientists make not to get involved with morality (which I sometimes think might be a mistake) is not a moral choice in and of itself? (I realize I am beginning to sound like a Rush song).
So I do not think I am confusing the scientific method with scientists, I am merely pointing out that science does not seem to exist as a neutral disinterested objective party in the current millieu (sp?).
To answer Derelth, yes that is a problem. As it is know, scientists have less control of the applications of their inventions and devices than they should. And at times, the governments are not helping, and in fact, exacerbating this problem. That lack of control once the prototype is made should be more of a reson why scientists should have more self-restraint about what they are developing. If they are developing something dangerous, they should have or be in the process of developing the means to counter what they have done. If not, they should advocate and promote those that are working on it.
No, no, no. If an inventor had that kind of control, we would live in the most restrictive society yet made. People are free to use what they own as they want. People accept the consequences for those actions. How do you justify taking those rights away?
You have to remember that our country was founded by inventors and scientists, of both physical and political fronts. Without the great inventor and scientist Benjamin Franklin providing the basic blocks of invention in the country, we would not be as overwhelming with innovation and useful patents. without Thomas Jefferson and others debating strongly on the nature of the new governments we would later have, would we have the debates that we have. The founding fathers envisioned new patents to be in the control of the inventor The inventor would distribute the product as he sees fit. Following Ben Franklin’s example, several inventors put their new products in public domain.
The balance of control of distribution today, however, is shifting away from the individual and towards the private coorporation and government, whose desire for the bottom line is more than the safe use and distribution of the product. Scientists should be a bit more careful because of this shift; their desire often conflict with that of the corporation and the government.
I think that most of the disagreement stems from different meanings of “science”. To me, it refers primarily to a method of gathering information. To others, it seems to refer to the information itself.
Ryan is correct…science generally is a mode of inquiry, the possession of information is merely knowledge, however it might be gained.
You can blame Thomas Edison for the shift from individual inventors to research-and-development companies. The notion of the Company R&D Lab is probably Edison’s single most influential innovation. (Not necessarily influential in a good way, just influential.)
This thread has kind of jumped between science, an abstract pursuit of knowledge, and invention, a physical art concerned with creating new tools. Reply if I’m wrong, but capacitator seems to think that scientists should be able to forsee the uses their abstract pursuits could be put to and then stop governments, corporations, private individuals, etc. from doing harm with ‘his’ discoveries (Facts themselves are not patented, copyrighted, or owned in any legal or moral sense. If I discover a new fact about methane, the fact is free to anyone to find out. If I invent a way to use that fact, the method is mine as long as the patent holds. That is a fundamental difference between science and technology.) even though, as said before, facts cannot be owned. The notion that inventors are responsible for the uses their inventions are put to is a notion repugnant to the natures of science and freedom. If somebody builds a bomb based around my cheap and accurate new digital watch, how far am I responsible? If the explosive was of my invention, how culpable am I? Humans can be free because liability is limited. If a person was responsible for things he never did, that person loses nearly all freedom.
Yes, the users of the new science, be it invention or the results of a new study, are also partly, or even mostly responsible, for misuse of that science. But I am inquiring what can we scientists do to reduce such misuse? I am not so convinced that with our abilities, throwing up our hands to the matter is an adequate response. If the scientist did what he legally could do to prevent it, and catastrophic misuse still occur, it is not the scientist’s fault. But if that scientist does nothing, or advocates the abuse or misuse, then I hold no sympathy for that one.
I know people often do think of scientists as staying out of the morality of applying knowledge, but when they see pressing problems stemming from technology, the do get involved.
Both Einstein and Oppenheimer spoke vehemently against furthering the development of nuclear weapons, for instance.
I believe an international consortium of scientists has officially decried the cloning of higher mammals, especially humans.
And scientists have been lashing out at the pollution brought on by the misuse of technology. Many scientists were actively involved in pro-environmental efforts even prior to acceptance of the Greenhouse effect and global warming. this could arguably be called a moral stand.
I think it is not just the scientists’ responsibility to monitor how their discoveries are used, it is everyone’s responsibility. Scientists should be involved, yes, but in what way does it exonerate someone who knowingly misuses it? Are the ones who did not invent it not morally responsible? To misuse is a moral abuse, no matter what, whether it be a new technology or a work of philosophy (although ‘misuse’ means something different in either case, the moral wrong done is unchanged).
That said, scientists possibly do have more responsiblity inasmuch as they may be among few who actually properly understand a technology’s implications. In other words, no geneticist is presently worried about a ray gun that will turn people into dogs, since that can’t be done. So they have a responsibility mainly to teach, to share their knowledge so that others can assist in the prevention of abuses.
That does bring into question the idea of, “this is so powerful no one should be allowed to know it … it could cause the collapse of the entire galaxy!!!”
panama jack
Inventor of the Galactic Imploder Device. (But it’s too dangerous to share it with the likes of you.)