Ultimate question of scientific ethics!

If I could prove anything, I would likely start from an axiom system. Unfortunately, Godel proved that I cannont prove every statement that is true in the system if it is to remain a consistant system.

But I guess if we are assuming I can prove anything, then I must be able to prove that a system can be consistant and inconsistent at the same time. However, that is itself an inconsistant statement, so I guess I cant prove anything. Therefore, I would go about proving this in just the way I have proven it above.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you had a box that PROVED god existed instead what would you do?

As a scientist I would have to tell the world even if it destroys my beliefs (atheism) because I believe all people have the right to know the facts! There have been many cases were scientist refused to admit information that prove them wrong, this only cause more shame and regret in the long run.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I really don't see how this is a problem. Of course you should tell everyone. Who gives a crap about scientific pride if you know you can sit in church and pray, thereby gaining access to the ultimate truth of everything upon death. (Plus, driving all those people into churches has got to be worth a few brownie points with god, huh?)

Of course, the above assumes a heaven that I could access and such. I guess the evidence may show no afterlife, just a god that kind of doesn't care (or whatever). In that case, I would show it for truths sake.

So lets supose, instead, that the proof of god shows that we will all go to hell. There is nothing we can do do about it. Would I (or you) still show the box? This is a much harder question that I am not sure how to answer!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's like the old sci-fi plot, where somehow the world will come to an end, but only a few know it. Do you tell the whole world it's screwed, with the resulting mayhem? Or do you let the world exist as usual for the last hours it has? If it didn't make a difference either way, why create more suffering by telling?

As for the original question, it would be scientifically unethical to hide evidence, regardless of the outcome. Science based on known falsehoods is bad science, period.

 

nowadays it seems ethical to actually hide evidence. See the controversy about publishing research that could actually aid terrorists in making bioweapons. There must be a thread somewhere about it.

 

Ya I saw it somewhere... once again you can't stop us from exploring the world; if some jack@$$ wants to kill us all with what we discover don't blame the messengers! Proper regulations on the technology not the science is the right way! Terrorists need the equipment to make this happen: track that and you can stop them and catch them at the same time.

 

ironically the US is putting a lot more money into reseach of bioweapons and prevention. But this also means that more people research this topic. This then increases the risk that there is some nut amongst them, or that some nut uses the information the new extended research comes up with.

ironically it might have been better not to increase funds for this research

 

read the "COBRA strain" and "The Hot Zone" by Richard Preston