I would ask, why do you expect science to function as a system of morality? How can describing a physical system (even in excruciating detail) inform one as to an ethical and moral way to live one's life? I have never said that science fulfils that role; why do you assume that I believe it does? On a larger scale, why do you assume that I believe that science is the "only endeavour worthy of serious human pursuit"? I do not recall ever saying or implying such a thing. In fact, much of my reason for engaging in these discussions is to try to get people to stop assuming that scientists hold such beliefs. I realize that most people don't know any scientists, and it is easy to dehumanize people one has never met--I'm here to say that we are just as human as anyone else; we don't form some dark conspiracy meant to devalue and discredit religion; our concerns in life are similar to the concerns of people in other professions. In short, I am trying to counter the outright lies that the charlatan promoters of young earth creationism (e.g. Gish, Bebe, Hovind) tell about members of my profession.
Nor have you yet explained what part of the formula E=mc2 impelled the Truman Administration to go into an extensive internal ethical debate before the decision was made to drop the bomb that ended WWII. Further, you have been reminded that there was no scientific reason to not simply drop the bomb without a moment’s hesitation beyond the technical considerations involved in the bomb’s effective delivery. What, then, caused the Truman Administration to hesitate? Although you seem more than willing to preach the standard doctrine about what’s “testable” and what’s “falsifiable” you appear to have no reply to that elementary inquiry.
As I have said above, and will continue to say, ethics and morality are not intrinsic to the scientific process. Science is a method used to measure and describe the physical world in as objective a manner as possible, no more and no less. What is to prevent someone like me from using scientific knowledge to create a killer disease capable of wiping out a large fraction of earth's population? Technically, it's not that difficult. I have a sense of morality that tells me it is wrong to try to kill millions of people, and it is that moral sense--not science--that keeps me from designing, even if merely as a thought experiment existing only on paper, a disease that could cause that kind of destruction. I would hope that the people being selected to enter PhD programs share my sense of values so that such a thing never occurs.
When reminded, you were quick to report that the Tuskegee Experiment had been terminated and that steps had been taken to assure that a repetition would not be allowed. Why? What breach of scientific process protocol or of scientific practice brought about the abrupt termination of that experiment? Again, no reply . . . just assurances that such mistakes will not be repeated. What mistakes? According to what peer-reviewed scientific publication?
Need I point out the history of Bad Things perpetrated by religious people? What about the Spanish Inquisition? The Crusades? The decades-long war in Ireland between Catholics and Protestants? Do I even need to mention Islam? Ethically questionable practices are not unique to science, and seem to be part of the "human condition." All we can do is try to develop and improve our sense of ethics and morality, and carry it with us no matter what activity we engage in.
I don’t. But apparently you do. Or, more probably, you anticipate no need for any information beyond what is to be gleamed from a science textbook.
#553, this thread:
“Their [scientists] inclusion in an encyclopedia of philosophy does not make them philosophers. Most of the names on that list were scientists who used the scientific method--observation, logical deduction, formulation of testable hypotheses, experimentation, etc. Perhaps some of them engaged in philosophical thought meandering as a hobby, I don't know.
Thought meandering?
You seemed unsure for what Aristotle is remembered but you were suspicious that it was for “philosophical nonsense.”
#549, this thread:
You disavow any knowledge of philosophers, or of their work, and deny that they have any effect on your thoughts, or on the thoughts of your colleagues. “The scientific method was not developed by philosophers, but by scientists. Science and philosophy are, as far as I can tell, diametric opposites. Throughout undergraduate and graduate school, the subject of philosophy never came up.”
#520, this thread:
“I honestly do not expect the majority of scientists to be aware of the work of even major philosophers, even if those philosophers [referring to Popper, I assume] tried to phrase scientific methodology in the existentialist mumbo-jumbo language of philosophy. Philosophy (the discipline) is almost the antithesis of what science is all about: a very lot of thought exercises, which have no evidentiary basis whatsoever. I have no use for it.”
#506, this thread:
“We don’t delve into the existentialist nonsense that is typical of the subject philosophy.”
”Need I point out the history of Bad Things perpetrated by religious people?”
Changing the subject (trying to). Need I point out that the “Bad Things” perpetrated by religious people do not excuse the errors (“Bad Things”) of “science people” (re: the Tuskegee Experiment), and do not excuse what happens when “science people” dismiss philosophy as “existentialist nonsense”? It wasn’t Science that caused people to comprehend the horror of the Tuskegee Experiment. Pointing to other people’s dirty underwear doesn’t clean yours. You have declared that you have no use for anything but Science. I have presented examples illustrating this to be a foolish attitude.
“Science is a method used to measure and describe the physical world in as objective a manner as possible, no more and no less.”
“No more and no less.” In #508, this thread, I observed that you have declared science is so much more than “information gathering” (see #479 & #506, this thread), illustrating your point by describing an ever more sophisticated and elaborate method for gathering information. Admirable, laudatory even, but simply a more sophisticated and elaborate method of information gathering.
Now your remarks seem to indicate an attempt to walk it back a little. I rejoice in the change of your view, and that it more closely approaches mine.
Which leads me to again raise the issue; whence comes the ethics of science? Are there any ethics in science? Should there be (re: Tuskegee study)? I thought I caught a glimpse where you denied that an ethics of science existed, just before your post was removed by the Mod. In that case may I bother you, once again, for a reply? Or, was I mistaken?
“I have a sense of morality”
I’ve never doubted for a moment that you do. From whence did it come?