First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply When ethics hold science back
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/13/16 , edited 6/13/16

maniackillah wrote:

Oh My God!!! Nice avatar lol hermit purple.

Science need not ethics, humans need ethics so they don't destroy themselves with science. Science needs nothing except something to do it. Ethics will not help but only deter science. Ethics will however preserve beings to do science. I guess I can understand the circle though. Science needs ethics to prevent tragedy so we can continue doing science. Science should be free of anything pertaining to bias, when entering a lab you should throw all your morals out the door. Ethics should effect what we do with scientific knowledge not necessarily the science itself. I really just wanted to say, Oh My God!!!!


Please bear in mind that research ethics are the reason people can be thwacked for falsifying their results or misrepresenting others' results in reviews. Scientific research cannot reliably function without ethical guidelines.
502 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 6/13/16 , edited 6/13/16
If an institution exists, and has existed for a long period of time, be cautious when questioning it's existence.

There is a reason we have ethics in science. In large part it is due to a certain scientific field that is now all but dead due to its misuse, along with a war.

Ethics isn't to protect us from science. It's to protect science from ourselves.
28192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/13/16

Ryulightorb wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3572735/Lazarus-trial-hopes-REVERSE-death-Reanimation-firm-gets-ethical-approval-bring-brain-dead-people-life.html


Well, none of that sounds like the opening plot to a Resident Evil sequel.



Ryulightorb wrote:
In theory it's possible if you have not lost everything and if their is damage you can possibly heal it with stem cells (not now of course but in the future if stem cells work as well as researches chock them up to be)

All Humans are, are just biological machines if it can go offline it can go online.


Its not quite a matter of offline online as it is offline is there even any data storage left that can be restored. Restoring brain stem function and the central nervous system is a far cry from restoring consciousness and memory. The details the project are quite a bit less lofty than the claims.

They're essentially just going to bombard a brain dead patient with a number of different experiments and hope something happens. I can see why there are ethical considerations. "We're going to pump peptides and stem cells directly into your loved ones spine. Also some lasers." would raise an eyebrow.

This may glean useful information for treating other neurological conditions and injuries. But its a far cry from its grandoise name and claims.







590 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / The Ivory Tower
Offline
Posted 6/13/16 , edited 6/13/16

maniackillah wrote:

Baghdad was once the science capital of the world. It had the brightest people on the earth, now look. Ethics can be incredibly detrimental to pursuit of goals. At some point people invoke god and come up with morals and principles that go against the grain of science for some reason. People's morals shouldn't get in the way of advance. I feel like the original post was aimed toward religious people believing bringing back the unconscious would weaken their thought/belief of afterlife.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZCuF733p88

Degrease tyson explains how ideology and moralities can destroy advance in science and hinder humans.


Don't listen to Tyson about history. He doesn't know what he's talking about. It was the Mongol invasion that wrecked Islamic civilization, and we have no idea what would've happened had that not been the case. Science thrives when a civilization has leisure time - meaning there are enough rich people who don't have to worry about civilizational collapse that they can be patrons of the arts and sciences. This is why there was a dramatic slowdown of science in Western Europe: barbarians invaded and Rome fell. The monasteries kept up the scientific knowledge that was left, but the rulers didn't have time to "waste" on science when there were wars going on.

The Beginnings of Western Science by David Lindberg is the go-to book for learning how a historian thinks of history of science. It's big and academic, but it's written at the level of an introductory college course. And it's amazing; often it turns out that it's the ideologies and moralities themselves that give science new directions. Much of the scientific development in the west from 1000-1500 arose out of the attempt of academics to incorporate Christian thinking and Aristotle (whose works they had just gotten back through the Byzantine empire and the Islamic world).

One of my favorite stories to tell from Lindberg's book involves human dissection: it used to be that dissecting the human body was considered sacrilegious. So Galen - a second-century physician, and one of the most famous - suggested the following to his students: if they come across someone with a large/deep wound, then in the process of treating it, they should kinda look around - you know, peek a little - to see what they could find in there. And especially if they had a corpse that was cut open - that was lucky. There's some ethics and science for you.
20714 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 6/13/16

runec wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3572735/Lazarus-trial-hopes-REVERSE-death-Reanimation-firm-gets-ethical-approval-bring-brain-dead-people-life.html


Well, none of that sounds like the opening plot to a Resident Evil sequel.



Ryulightorb wrote:
In theory it's possible if you have not lost everything and if their is damage you can possibly heal it with stem cells (not now of course but in the future if stem cells work as well as researches chock them up to be)

All Humans are, are just biological machines if it can go offline it can go online.


Its not quite a matter of offline online as it is offline is there even any data storage left that can be restored. Restoring brain stem function and the central nervous system is a far cry from restoring consciousness and memory. The details the project are quite a bit less lofty than the claims.

They're essentially just going to bombard a brain dead patient with a number of different experiments and hope something happens. I can see why there are ethical considerations. "We're going to pump peptides and stem cells directly into your loved ones spine. Also some lasers." would raise an eyebrow.

This may glean useful information for treating other neurological conditions and injuries. But its a far cry from its grandoise name and claims.


No one said that it would work and yes it is a far cry with our current understanding of the human brain it doesn't mean it isn't worth pursuing because in theory it is very possible to fix the brain if we understand it and all of its entirety .






Sogno- 
45646 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/13/16
just let me die
28192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/13/16

Ryulightorb wrote:
No one said that it would work and yes it is a far cry with our current understanding of the human brain it doesn't mean it isn't worth pursuing because in theory it is very possible to fix the brain if we understand it and all of its entirety .


Didn't say it wasn't worth pursuing. Just that they're getting ahead of themselves calling it the Lazarus project like they're reanimating Commander Shepard. ;p




Sogno- wrote:
just let me die


Also that.
22333 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/13/16

auroraloose wrote: Don't listen to Tyson about history. He doesn't know what he's talking about. It was the Mongol invasion that wrecked Islamic civilization, and we have no idea what would've happened had that not been the case. Science thrives when a civilization has leisure time - meaning there are enough rich people who don't have to worry about civilizational collapse that they can be patrons of the arts and sciences. This is why there was a dramatic slowdown of science in Western Europe: barbarians invaded and Rome fell. The monasteries kept up the scientific knowledge that was left, but the rulers didn't have time to "waste" on science when there were wars going on.

The Beginnings of Western Science by David Lindberg is the go-to book for learning how a historian thinks of history of science. It's big and academic, but it's written at the level of an introductory college course. And it's amazing; often it turns out that it's the ideologies and moralities themselves that give science new directions. Much of the scientific development in the west from 1000-1500 arose out of the attempt of academics to incorporate Christian thinking and Aristotle (whose works they had just gotten back through the Byzantine empire and the Islamic world).

One of my favorite stories to tell from Lindberg's book involves human dissection: it used to be that dissecting the human body was considered sacrilegious. So Galen - a second-century physician, and one of the most famous - suggested the following to his students: if they come across someone with a large/deep wound, then in the process of treating it, they should kinda look around - you know, peek a little - to see what they could find in there. And especially if they had a corpse that was cut open - that was lucky. There's some ethics and science for you.

I would disagree neil is a pretty bright guy and he tackled the mongols invasion thing pretty well. He gives a good analogy of al-ghazali I think the video represents very well how ideology can harm intellectual advances. Why have the issues with science persisted to this day? Did you actually watch the video? Right something becomes considered sacrilegious for people and they shun science or advancement for invoking belief in afterlife or some other thing. Lindberg sounds interesting though.
28192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/13/16

maniackillah wrote:
Why have the issues with science persisted to this day? Did you actually watch the video? Right something becomes considered sacrilegious for people and they shun science or advancement for invoking belief in afterlife or some other thing. Lindberg sounds interesting though.


Well, the issues did not persist consistently. Which is the interesting thing about modern scuffles between science and religion. They are regressive not just scientifically but also in terms of the respective religions. Islam of course had the Islamic Golden Age. Christianity too, while it took longer to come around to it, viewed science as an avenue to discovering more about God and creation.

Modern religious conservatives that reject science aren't just being regressive in the modern sense. They aren't going backwards a few decades, they're going back hundreds of years. In the process they ironically cling to literal interpretations of books that were not even originally written in their language and aren't being presented to them in their original forms.

A good deal of religious fuckery of the course of history has been due more to power and politics than deeply held convictions. Its only the unwashed masses that need to be convinced its about deeply held convictions.
16735 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 6/13/16
without death we would have to war each other to keep our populations in check and be able to feed ourselves.
10578 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/13/16
Science is protected by laser guns, not feelings.
22333 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/14/16

runec wrote: Well, the issues did not persist consistently. Which is the interesting thing about modern scuffles between science and religion. They are regressive not just scientifically but also in terms of the respective religions. Islam of course had the Islamic Golden Age. Christianity too, while it took longer to come around to it, viewed science as an avenue to discovering more about God and creation.

Modern religious conservatives that reject science aren't just being regressive in the modern sense. They aren't going backwards a few decades, they're going back hundreds of years. In the process they ironically cling to literal interpretations of books that were not even originally written in their language and aren't being presented to them in their original forms.

A good deal of religious fuckery of the course of history has been due more to power and politics than deeply held convictions. Its only the unwashed masses that need to be convinced its about deeply held convictions.


On a bigger level I could see how politics and power matter. Although this also goes back to why the middle east has never recovered. Political power was taken over by theologians. In turn you have an abuse of people, in particular women. This is due to an ideology and really hurts the intellectual half of a community. Also a man very influential told his people that "math was the language of evil" or something along those lines. This effected the intellectual advances of these individuals at some level for some time, at least a generation.

Obviously now a war torn area isn't going to ever recover, which once again was caused by ideology.

I think the issue of ideology being detrimental to the middle east has more than consisted. Although I do agree with most of what you said I believe ideology has controlled government through deeply held convictions especially in this example and it has been for the worse. The more I think about it the more I feel ideology becomes the main problem.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.