top 51 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 25 points 1 year ago (24 children)
  • [+] [S] -24 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    Is the sentence hard to understand?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    And scientific study is unethical... How?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    My brother, how many examples do you need? Without mentioning the 30s and 40s, look at the Tuskegee Experiment where men were given syphilis intentionally and withheld treatment to study it's spread in black populations. Or the San Francisco Operation Sea-Spray when dangerous bacterial were sprayed over the entire city to study it's effects on the population. Ethical frameworks exist to prevent people from harming others in the pursuit of data, because if they aren't prevented they will. I order to prevent this harm from being done, a clearly defined set of principles must be stated and written down so that everyone involved can have the same understanding when designing and approving studies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] [S] -20 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Scientific study is by nature unethical because one must do unethical things in it's pursuit. We have ethical frameworks around Scientific Study for a reason, and it isn't because it was doing fine without those frameworks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Why do you think that asking questions, making a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis and writing down the results is unethical?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] [S] -19 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Why do you think the context of the testing doesn't matter?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    You said "science", not any specific type or category of study, so if you mean a specific school of science is unethical you should make that distinction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] [S] -16 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Yes, because context matters. Exceptions don't make the rule, and speaking generally about things is allowed when they are related.

    If you want to get into the semantics feel free. My statement is broad because it is a "shower thought".

    This isn't debate club.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This isn't debate club.

    If people aren't suppose to discuss and possibly disagree, why post? What do you think is the purpose of the showerthoughts community?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    If people aren’t suppose to discuss and possibly disagree, why post?

    I am open to discussion and disagreement. Look around the thread and tell me how many opening comments you see promoting discussion or civil disagreement.

    What do you think is the purpose of the showerthoughts community?

    To share "Shower thoughts".

    Crazy concept I know.

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

    I see a bunch of people posting civil and reasonable issues with the thinking behind your shower thought, and then you replying in an immature and disingenuous manner. I think the contrasting upvotes / downvotes in your comments vs everyone elses suggests that my interpretation is shared by the wider community.

    I almost didn't comment because I thought from your behaviour it was obvious trolling, and there's no point reasoning with trolls. But looking through your post history, you seem like you're generally posting on good faith, so I thought I'd try and explain that you do not need to react so defensively to legitamate discussion and disagreement.

    A shower thought doesn't need to be factually correct to be interesting, but when you post a pretty extreme take on a serious and sensitive subject, it isn't surprising that people are going to clarify where you've gone wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 year ago

    This isn't a serious or sensitive topic, and I engaged people as they engaged me. If you actually looked at the thread you would see me engage like a jerk when people engaged me in bad faith, and engaged in good faith conversation with those who engaged in good faith.

    Go police someone else. I never asked for your opinion.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes, because context matters. Exceptions don't make the rule, and speaking generally about things is allowed when they are related.

    So what is the exception here? You said, and I quote, "science is by nature unethical". So you're saying any experimental methodology in any school of science exploring any number of completely benign things is somehow unethical.

    This isn't debate club.

    I see you're new to the internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Found the psychopathic scientist!

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Don't excuse a Nazi with mental disorders. Who do you think a person like this would choose to be unethical with? his parents? No probably the people he hates.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] [S] -13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This is incredibly ignorant, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Says the guy who thinks Mengele had a point.

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

    this is like the shit i would say when i was 12, i am assuming the same about you

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    This is some Josef Mengele type of shit. Hope you like the tropical sun

  • source