scientists need to GET OVER IT

[Agathon]

I've actually taught bioethics and ethics in science and I sympathize with Kuci.

The problem is not that there isn't a need for ethics in science, but that the vast majority of what gets discussed is silly and often motivated by religious impulses. Despite being debunked year after year some idiots insist on talking about "playing God" and other such idiocies.

If it is done properly it can be both useful and interesting for scientists.

The last time I taught this stuff, we spent a lot of time talking about problems with the environment and things like tradable pollution permits and the tragedy of the commons. We also talked about how markets tend to undervalue things like national parks, and the effects of IT and genetic testing on individual privacy.

This is all interesting stuff, but it tends to get overshadowed by the religious twits.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Drachasor
In addition, ethicists are a benefit to society. The average ethicist thinks a lot more about morality than the average person, and society can benefit from that extra critical thinking.

Yay! We should have paid professionals telling us what to think!

Lastly, I find it a bit ironic that you say you don't want people telling you what your ethics are, but your stance is that you are saying scientists should have no concerns for the ethical implications of their research.

-Drachasor

I'm saying I'm sick of hearing, whenever we have some biologist as a speaker at our school, or we read some article in class, or watch a video, about the ethical implications. I don't care. I've heard it all before, and it's just annoying by now. They've made their point.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: scientists need to GET OVER IT

Originally posted by Cruddy
...I think you missed the point. The atomic bomb is still killing people and will continue to do so when you and I are maggot food.

I think you missed my point in being pedantic about what tense I used.

Read my reply and ask yourself the question again. I think the point they were making is that a science decision can have implications 1,000s (yes, thousands) of years down the road.

Is it really so evil to try and make people think, rather than following the herd?

After about the fiftieth time you've made the same point, yes.

[Agathon]

Yay! We should have paid professionals telling us what to think!

Yes. They are called teachers.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yes. They are called teachers.

Thought it is closer to say they go over how people think, encourage you to think, and say what has been thought about a particular issue.

The ethicists aren't telling people how to think, they are sharing their thoughts and others thoughts on the matter, and the related reasoning. They never say "think this:..." or anything like that. Well, except for things that are demonstrably or clearly true.

-Drachasor

[Agathon]

Thought it is closer to say they go over how people think, encourage you to think, and say what has been thought about a particular issue.

To teach people how to think you have to teach them what to think. You have to teach them about validity, soundness, rational persuasiveness, etc.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
"Gather round as I sing you of Werner von Braun
A man whose allegiance
is ruled by expedience
Call him a Nazi and he won't even frown
Nazi, Schmazi says Werner von Braun

Don't say that he's hypocritical
Say rather that he's apolitical
'Once ze rockets go up, who cares where zey come down?
That's not my department' says Werner von Braun.

Some have harsh words for this man of renown
But some say our attitude
Should be one of gratitude
Like the widows and cripples of old London town
Who owe their large pensions to Werner von Braun

You too can be such a hero
If you can count backward to zero
'In English unt German, I know how to count down
Unt I'm learning Chinese!' says Werner von Braun"

Titled "He aims for the stars but sometimes hits London", as I recall...

[Jon Miller]

I don't know about any ethical issues dealing with the atomic bomb

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
What are you talking about diss?
I'm on the side of those who think people always exagerate about the atomic bomb.
For example, more people died in the napalm raids in Tokyo in one night than in both atomic bombs.

But it IS proven that radiation increases the chance of mutation in new born babies which in turn increases the chance of almost any kind of defect you can think of...

actually, radiation is not all bad

there is some evidence that shows that health is best at moderate levels of radiation (by moderate I actually mean very low on most scales, just not extremely low)

of course, everyone (about) agrees that high and very high levels of radiation are very bad

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

physicists always seem very guilty about the atomic bomb

it was bad, I don't see what the big deal was though...

Jon Miller

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Jon Miller--emphasis added
I don't know about any ethical issues dealing with the atomic bomb

Originally posted by Jon Miller--emphasis added
physicists always seem very guilty about the atomic bomb

it was bad, I don't see what the big deal was though...

Jon Miller

Which is it?

-Drachasor

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


actually, radiation is not all bad

there is some evidence that shows that health is best at moderate levels of radiation (by moderate I actually mean very low on most scales, just not extremely low)

of course, everyone (about) agrees that high and very high levels of radiation are very bad

Jon Miller

Yeah I sorta hinted at that, that radiation at everyday level plays a role in life.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme

Originally posted by Jon Miller
actually, radiation is not all bad

there is some evidence that shows that health is best at moderate levels of radiation (by moderate I actually mean very low on most scales, just not extremely low)

of course, everyone (about) agrees that high and very high levels of radiation are very bad

Yeah I sorta hinted at that, that radiation at everyday level plays a role in life.

But more radiation is not helpful. We know what levels are bad, and the ones that the Atomic Bombs caused were basically wholly bad. Even moderate levels of radiation are not good for you. Only pretty low levels can be beneficial, and that is largely taken up by background radiation which is already present.

-Drachasor

[Jon Miller]

it was bad that millions of people died

the existence of an atomic bomb is no issue to me

JM

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Drachasor


Yeah I sorta hinted at that, that radiation at everyday level plays a role in life.

But more radiation is not helpful. We know what levels are bad, and the ones that the Atomic Bombs caused were basically wholly bad. Even moderate levels of radiation are not good for you. Only pretty low levels can be beneficial, and that is largely taken up by background radiation which is already present.

-Drachasor [/QUOTE]

Well if you read the whole thread that is exactly what we were saying so no need to argue