-63
Ethical frameworks are detrimental to Scientific Study because Science is by nature unethical. (lemmy.ca)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 1 year ago (24 children)

Wut

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -24 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    Is the sentence hard to understand?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago* (12 children)

    its just hard to understand how something so stupid can be said

    The Wiki page defines ETHICS as

    Ethics is the philosophical study of moral phenomena. Also called moral philosophy, it investigates normative questions about what people ought to do or which behavior is morally right.

    What you are doing is anthropomorphizing science. Science is a method system for understanding nature.

    And without ethics in science, we get nightmare bastardization of science.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    its just hard to understand how something so stupid can be said

    It's especially funny when you read OP's profile bio:

    Nowadays everybody wants to talk like they got something to say but nothing comes out when they move their lips just a bunch of gibberish.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] [S] -19 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Without ethics in Science we have a detailed understanding of our anatomy, the ability to transplant organs, numerous life saving medications, space travel, understanding of the human mind, etc.

    Fact of the matter is when "ethics" are imposed on Scientific study, Scientific study is hindered, so Scientific study cannot be ethical if it is to be successful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Bring back vivisection! (you volunteering?)

    You don't seem to know what ethical means.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I think you need to understand the history of science before you debate this argument, you are basically mixing metaphors

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I understand the history of Science which is why I made my OP.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don't believe you. And I am done with this debate. You have shown a very good lack of understanding in this brief encounter.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -10 points 1 year ago

    its just hard to understand how something so stupid can be said

    I don't care what you believe because you have demonstrated 0 good faith since start.

    You can go away now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You just lumped all of “science” together. Even the science of documenting birdsong?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Can you tell me what goes in to the Science of birdsong? I am unfamiliar with the field and expect you to be able to give me a detailed response on what goes in to it as it is your example.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It's not hard to understand, despite being badly formulated, it's just very questionable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    What about my statement is badly formulated? If it is questionable, where are your questions?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You could've said "science is unethical by nature", or "science is, by nature, unethical", with commas. Those would be well formulated sentences, which would be easier to read and make sense of.

    About the questions: do you oppose all ethical guidelines in science? Are there any you're fond of? Or should science be completely unimpeded, regardless of who it damages, or what purpose it serves? Can you give any examples?

    As I said, very questionable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You could’ve said “science is unethical by nature”, or “science is, by nature, unethical”, with commas. Those would be well formulated sentences, which would be easier to read and make sense of.

    You understood exactly what I meant.

    About the questions: do you oppose all ethical guidelines in science? Are there any you’re fond of? Or should science be completely unimpeded, regardless of who it damages, or what purpose it serves? Can you give any examples?

    I don't oppose ethical guidelines because they are required to keep Scientific Study in check. I never stated that Science did not need ethical frameworks, I said they are detrimental to Scientific Study. Ethical frameworks hold back Study because of the damage it can do. That doesn't mean progress is not slowed because of those safe guards.

    If Scientific study is ethical, why do we require ethical frame works to keep Scientific study from being unethical?

    As I said, very questionable.

    It is only questionable because of the numerous assumptions you made about me as a person, followed by engaging me in bad faith because of those assumptions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes, I understood exactly what you said because, as I said before, it's not hard to understand, it's just badly formulated.

    Natural science is amoral, a jaguar doesn't care that a gazelle is pregnant when hunting it, since neither of them know what morality is. Scientific research is not naturally moral or immoral, it's instance dependant. You wouldn't call Volta immoral for stacking zinc and copper to make a battery, and you wouldn't think twice before calling Unit 731 immoral.

    You don't get to make a normative claim, wrap it in a false equivalence between human constructs, like scientific research and morality, and the moral independency of natural science, word it inches away from historical fascist research ideals, and then complain when people fill in the blanks in the most plausible way. If you wanted a real discussion, you could've developed, from the start, on what you mean, and worded it better. But you didn't, you're just rage baiting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] [S] -6 points 1 year ago

    This is shower thoughts and you are responsible for your own "rage" you feel I "baited" because you are too ignorant to entertain any idea you don't understand. Which is the problem, you don't understand and you are mad about it so you shoot the messenger.

    Ignorant humans sure like to hide behind emotional response instead of using logical thought.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent