Your interpretation may be right but he appearsto be treating them as mutually exclusive. Some people are ethical . othes are not. That's all there is to it/
You are changing the meaning of the word value from my OP. I have a friend who agrees science has much value (in your mistaken meaning). He says a nuclear device with a handy detonation system can bring big bucks in some parts of the world. He reminds me that without science these huge profits would not be possible. I remind him that science has nothing to say about how such things are used. Quite the opposite. I point out that science believes there is no objective truth concerning morality or values. I will say science seems to seek some objective truth, which it believes it can never find. Whether or not there is an objective truth, is not the business of science. Science has not earned the right to proclaim there is no objective truth. When the scientists concern themselves with science, there is no problem. When scientists concern themselves with morality and values, they lack the proper tools to make any decisions. You must have missed the links I posted that point out that science can provide no proof. I do not believe it requires what it cannot provide.
I guess because science has power, and power can be abused. Scientists, especially the materialist types who consider religious people to be mentally defective are the scariest. I'll stick with my example: If an ethic can be derived rationally from the activity of science, it would start with the value of knowledge. Having knowledge is better than not having knowledge. Even I agree with that. But knowledge at what price? The religous practices of Islam, while emenable to mathmatics and philosophy, were seen by the west to hamstring the study of medicine for centuries. The west had no such strictures, and were able to make progress on that front. There now is a group of people whose cultural and spiritual practices hold respect for the remains of the dead, and feel that digging up the bones of their ancesters for study is wrong. A group of ethical (not unethical) scientists differ with that opinion. Instead of respecting the wishes of the group impacted (Assguard's Non-malfecence clause), they file suit to retain the right to study the remains. That's their right. But now - the scientific community, in the form of the Society for American Archeology weighs in with an Amicus brief: While claiming not to take sides, they felt that earlier rulings "ignored the fact that cultural affiliation must be established by "a preponderance of the evidence." We are now exactly where I claimed we were - a group having more facts is attempting to use those facts to override the the ethical claims of another group with less facts. Note here that I grant all parties are acting ethically. Myles - you said: My point: In the conflict of ethics, scientists will tend to argue with fact, and dismiss ethics derived from non-factual sources.
Knowledge forms the frame of of the human potential. It's implications and ultimate course of history are however detemined by the value men gives these discoveries. A example the chinese invented the gunpowder. However the value they have it differt greatly of those of the westerns. Witch leads to the fact that how more of the science you exept and the higher you raise it's value the more powerful you become and if you don't exept it someone else will and be better of.
Assguard - thanks. I understand what you mean by principle based ethics - back in the day we called it 'situational ethics'. PS - You might appreciate this, ASSGUARD - My hometown is BUMPASS! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Science is not an 'it', it's not a thing. It's a process, the idea that the closest form of objective truth is reached through experimentation and direct observation. The important point being truth, in science, is not 100% objective, but it's absolutely not subjective either. I see what you're trying to say, but that's a poor example. You have to sign your consent granting the use of your body, or parts of it, for scientific research. Whether this rule is put in place by science or by government is debatable, I'd say it's some of both (mainly Medical Ethics Boards). But science isn't left to its own devices, and even without religious morals we'd have morals imposed by the laws of our society. In a world without morals, where science truely is left to its own devices, we couldn't imagine reasons to make science illegal, because all our laws are a result of morals which we've agreed upon. So your whole arguement is irrelevent.
Only if you think that electricity, vaccinations, anti-biotics, the ability to forcast the weather, telephones, and computers have no value. Those are all products of science, in case you weren't paying attention.
It sounds to me like you meant to say that science has no inherent ethics. In which case I would agree with you.
I see where your flaw is here, you don't know what science entails. It's simply a method for understanding how things work. It's little wonder your responses are so ridiculous.
Here’s the difference between what you say, and what I say. I say your statement hides the truth. If it were as simple as your statement, we would have no disagreement. The problem is some individuals act as though It's simply a method for understanding how everything works. What I often see is the attitude of: ‘When science validates it, I’ll believe it. Otherwise, it is made up stuff with no substance.’ Now if you want to take a stand against that type of attitude, we have no disagreement. Science is not moral~neutral, as it is sometimes presented, it is amoral. Those in science who find morality, find it outside of science. Science cannot validate their morality, so some individuals want to say it has no substance. A purely scientific world view is amoral. Most individuals would say actions have morality, or at least some actions. Eating or sleeping will not normally have moral meaning. On a daily basis our actions require some level of morality. There will be morality of one kind or another. When we are faced with moral decisions, which is inevitable, science gives no answers. ~ ~ ~ ~ It has no inherent ethics, because it is not capable of establishing any. It can only borrow from other disciplines. The process of science offers no ethics. Those individual we might call scientists, may have their own ethics, which they have derived from another disciplines. If they try to use science to justify their beliefs, they will fail. There will not be convincing scientific evidence they have chosen the best or proper moral code, no matter what code they chose.
As I stated above, your flaw is not understanding what science entails, hence your claims are not valid. A process cannot have ethics. Scientists are people, hence people can have ethics or not. Scientists use science as a method of understanding how things work. Again, your points are moot.
What about the science of medicine? That's based on essentially ethical and moral principles. Or you could say the practice is ethical. In order to treat a 'patient' ensure that no treatment causes further harm, or more risk to their "well-being" than they face at the outset of any treatment. In other words don't experiment with the lives of sick people, rather try to treat the disease or illness or injury "ethically". Place the patient's survival above any "scientific" result. If it were unethical as a science, the lives of people getting treatment would be irrelevant - the aim would be to control disease, so the "best treatment", scientifically, would be execution, followed by incineration.
I took a class called "Medical Ethics". Do you thing such a class is offered in the science department, or the medical department? If you can show it to me, I will be a believer. Medial Ethics is derivied from philosophy, and if a budding young doctor is to be trained in medical ethics, it is a philosophy professor that will do it. As I have said, Science (the Sciences), is obligated to look to other diciplines for it's moral and ethical guidelines.
Not at all; it was you who neglected to indicate that you were making use of the word "value" in an alternate manner (this being the Philosophy Thread, not Ethics..). And so it should not. Which is irrelevant (in absence of your alternate interpretation of the word "value"). Incorrect. Correct. Irrelevant; it has nothing to do with 'right' (whatever that may be..). I concur. I remember them, but don't see the relevance. As long as you refrain from requiring science to prove anything, I have no problem with this.
I was not saying it was good or bad. I was pointing out an axiomatic value judgement. I think it can lead to certain kinds of information and cuts off others. I do not see an either or situation.
