The way I read this, the Pope used science to attack homosexuality, and the New Scientist criticized him for using science to settle moral matters. This article criticizes the New Scientist for using science to settle moral matters. What is your actual position on the use of science in the realm of morality?
I'm a hospice nurse and we have an ethics meeting once a month, as you might imagine, there are ethical issues from time to time in end of life care.
So, it's the nursing science setting, with the MD there, going over ethics.
Now where do you think ethics come from in this scientific setting?
Seems to me that many don't have a problem using science to settle moral matters in favor of eliminating morals. I wonder if the New Scientist would have criticized him for using science to support homosexuality.
Somehow I don't think so since it's being done by others already.
“What is your actual position on the use of science in the realm of morality?”
This wasn’t addressed to me. I hope you don’t mind if I offer my 2cts.
My academic background is economics (economic theory). This kind of question sometimes comes up when addressing social policy. I was taught that value judgments and questions of what ought to be done are not part of science. Science can address the consequences of actions.
Here is an example. Let’s say we want to help the poor. If a particular government program is advanced to help the poor, economics can try to answer the question “will it work?” Economists predicted that Aid to Families with Dependent Children would provide an incentive to break up families and to have additional children without marriage. These economists were criticized as being heartless and uncaring. That was not true. It turns out that the economists were right and AFDC destroyed many families. AFDC drove the illegitimacy rate among blacks from where it was, near the national average, to something like 85%. This was entirely predictable. Economists could see that AFDC would have effects contrary to what was intended.