ITT: Scientists not a good representation of human moral codes.

[Kai]

I wondered if you had read this or not.

I think the desire to read some sort of ethical meaning into science or scientists is unhealthy.  I can understand why, and the impulse is strong, but when you read about, say, the scientists working for Unit 731 in Japan, or those doing experiments in Nazi Germany, it quickly becomes clear that systematic inquiry into the rules of the Universe do not necessarily preclude one from being a monster, nor do they necessarily even reduce the chances of that when compared with other groupings.  Suggestions, even cultural ones, that scientists are somehow more moral and more humane than most people seems to play into some sort of naive secularism which replaces the priesthood as a model of conduct with the scientific community, and perhaps encourages more faith in the decency of scientists (as a group) than they deserve.

And running from there straight into Hedges' argument in I Don't Believe In Atheists.

People fall for those who give them a utopian vision. Priesthood indeed.

[Vene]

Although... Kai!  We should start a cult!

[Kai]

Although... Kai!  We should start a cult!

What, and just imitate Dawkins and his Brights?

I think not.



I've got my own religion that rectifies science with spirituality. Doesn't have any sort of ritual associated with it though.

[Iason Ouabache]

Suggestions, even cultural ones, that scientists are somehow more moral and more humane than most people seems to play into some sort of naive secularism which replaces the priesthood as a model of conduct with the scientific community, and perhaps encourages more faith in the decency of scientists (as a group) than they deserve.

Can you give me an example of any time this has happened outside of really bad science fiction? I keep hearing stories about scientists acting like gods and wanting to be worshipped but I've never seen it happen in real life. Sure, I've seen several philosophers of science put forth moral systems but they are conscious of the Is-Ought Problem and don't tell people "Convert or die!" unlike some certain groups. 

[Reginald Ret]

Suggestions, even cultural ones, that scientists are somehow more moral and more humane than most people seems to play into some sort of naive secularism which replaces the priesthood as a model of conduct with the scientific community, and perhaps encourages more faith in the decency of scientists (as a group) than they deserve.

Can you give me an example of any time this has happened outside of really bad science fiction? I keep hearing stories about scientists acting like gods and wanting to be worshipped but I've never seen it happen in real life. Sure, I've seen several philosophers of science put forth moral systems but they are conscious of the Is-Ought Problem and don't tell people "Convert or die!" unlike some certain groups. 

It's not the scientists that want to be worshipped, its the general populace that choose the scientists to worship. And if you have worshippers all it takes to cause trouble is one asshole priest/scientist. (that would be an interesting dualclass)

[Kai]

Suggestions, even cultural ones, that scientists are somehow more moral and more humane than most people seems to play into some sort of naive secularism which replaces the priesthood as a model of conduct with the scientific community, and perhaps encourages more faith in the decency of scientists (as a group) than they deserve.

Can you give me an example of any time this has happened outside of really bad science fiction? I keep hearing stories about scientists acting like gods and wanting to be worshipped but I've never seen it happen in real life. Sure, I've seen several philosophers of science put forth moral systems but they are conscious of the Is-Ought Problem and don't tell people "Convert or die!" unlike some certain groups. 

It's not the scientists that want to be worshipped, its the general populace that choose the scientists to worship. And if you have worshippers all it takes to cause trouble is one asshole priest/scientist. (that would be an interesting dualclass)

Its been done.

[Iason Ouabache]

Suggestions, even cultural ones, that scientists are somehow more moral and more humane than most people seems to play into some sort of naive secularism which replaces the priesthood as a model of conduct with the scientific community, and perhaps encourages more faith in the decency of scientists (as a group) than they deserve.

Can you give me an example of any time this has happened outside of really bad science fiction? I keep hearing stories about scientists acting like gods and wanting to be worshipped but I've never seen it happen in real life. Sure, I've seen several philosophers of science put forth moral systems but they are conscious of the Is-Ought Problem and don't tell people "Convert or die!" unlike some certain groups. 

It's not the scientists that want to be worshipped, its the general populace that choose the scientists to worship. And if you have worshippers all it takes to cause trouble is one asshole priest/scientist. (that would be an interesting dualclass)

No offense, but I can tell that you're not an American.  Scientists aren't worshipped here.  They are liberal elitist/socialist pigs that live in an ivory tower and hate Baby Jebus.  We worship mediocrity here instead. Intelligence is a liability.

And of course deeming one person (whether it be priest, scientist, or plumber) with complete infalliability is a horrible idea.  We can all agree on that one.

[Kai]

Suggestions, even cultural ones, that scientists are somehow more moral and more humane than most people seems to play into some sort of naive secularism which replaces the priesthood as a model of conduct with the scientific community, and perhaps encourages more faith in the decency of scientists (as a group) than they deserve.

Can you give me an example of any time this has happened outside of really bad science fiction? I keep hearing stories about scientists acting like gods and wanting to be worshipped but I've never seen it happen in real life. Sure, I've seen several philosophers of science put forth moral systems but they are conscious of the Is-Ought Problem and don't tell people "Convert or die!" unlike some certain groups. 

It's not the scientists that want to be worshipped, its the general populace that choose the scientists to worship. And if you have worshippers all it takes to cause trouble is one asshole priest/scientist. (that would be an interesting dualclass)

No offense, but I can tell that you're not an American.  Scientists aren't worshipped here.  They are liberal elitist/socialist pigs that live in an ivory tower and hate Baby Jebus.  We worship mediocrity here instead. Intelligence is a liability.

And of course deeming one person (whether it be priest, scientist, or plumber) with complete infalliability is a horrible idea.  We can all agree on that one.

I disagree, if you give ME complete infallibility.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Suggestions, even cultural ones, that scientists are somehow more moral and more humane than most people seems to play into some sort of naive secularism which replaces the priesthood as a model of conduct with the scientific community, and perhaps encourages more faith in the decency of scientists (as a group) than they deserve.

Can you give me an example of any time this has happened outside of really bad science fiction? I keep hearing stories about scientists acting like gods and wanting to be worshipped but I've never seen it happen in real life. Sure, I've seen several philosophers of science put forth moral systems but they are conscious of the Is-Ought Problem and don't tell people "Convert or die!" unlike some certain groups. 

It's not the scientists that want to be worshipped, its the general populace that choose the scientists to worship. And if you have worshippers all it takes to cause trouble is one asshole priest/scientist. (that would be an interesting dualclass)

No offense, but I can tell that you're not an American.  Scientists aren't worshipped here.  They are liberal elitist/socialist pigs that live in an ivory tower and hate Baby Jebus.  We worship mediocrity here instead. Intelligence is a liability.

And of course deeming one person (whether it be priest, scientist, or plumber) with complete infalliability is a horrible idea.  We can all agree on that one.

So the obvious solution is to deem everyone infallible. Easy.

[Cain]

Suggestions, even cultural ones, that scientists are somehow more moral and more humane than most people seems to play into some sort of naive secularism which replaces the priesthood as a model of conduct with the scientific community, and perhaps encourages more faith in the decency of scientists (as a group) than they deserve.

Can you give me an example of any time this has happened outside of really bad science fiction? I keep hearing stories about scientists acting like gods and wanting to be worshipped but I've never seen it happen in real life. Sure, I've seen several philosophers of science put forth moral systems but they are conscious of the Is-Ought Problem and don't tell people "Convert or die!" unlike some certain groups. 

Of scientists as rulers?  If you think that economics is a science, there is the Soviet Union and assosciated Marxist-Leninist regimes, with their focus on dialectical materialism and the like.  But that is a weak example, IMO, since social sciences are barely sciences in the commonly understood sense of the word.

However, scientists and in particular doctors have often been in the brutal employ of totalitarian regimes, and that was more what I had in mind.  Unit 731, the Japanse biological warfare group in WWII, was the most infamous example, though there are many others.  Because there is an ethical standard associated with doctors (Hippocratic Oath), people often expect that standard or similar from them, whereas as numerous examples show, from the "psychiatric" prisons of the USSR to the death camps of Nazi Germany, there is really little difference whatsoever.  That was more what I was worried about.   

[Chairman Risus]

No offense, but I can tell that you're not an American.  Scientists aren't worshipped here.  They are liberal elitist/socialist pigs that live in an ivory tower and hate Baby Jebus.  We worship mediocrity here instead. Intelligence is a liability.

And of course deeming one person (whether it be priest, scientist, or plumber) with complete infalliability is a horrible idea.  We can all agree on that one.

I've been working on a rant that runs along similar lines to this.  I'll start putting it all together soon.  Probably after the holidays. 

[Template]

be your own moral core you lazy buggers.

This.

Suggestions, even cultural ones, that scientists are somehow more moral and more humane than most people seems to play into some sort of naive secularism which replaces the priesthood as a model of conduct with the scientific community, and perhaps encourages more faith in the decency of scientists (as a group) than they deserve.

Can you give me an example of any time this has happened outside of really bad science fiction? I keep hearing stories about scientists acting like gods and wanting to be worshipped but I've never seen it happen in real life. Sure, I've seen several philosophers of science put forth moral systems but they are conscious of the Is-Ought Problem and don't tell people "Convert or die!" unlike some certain groups. 

It's not the scientists that want to be worshipped, its the general populace that choose the scientists to worship. And if you have worshippers all it takes to cause trouble is one asshole priest/scientist. (that would be an interesting dualclass)

No offense, but I can tell that you're not an American.  Scientists aren't worshipped here.  They are liberal elitist/socialist pigs that live in an ivory tower and hate Baby Jebus.  We worship mediocrity here instead. Intelligence is a liability.

And of course deeming one person (whether it be priest, scientist, or plumber) with complete infalliability is a horrible idea.  We can all agree on that one.

So the obvious solution is to deem everyone infallible. Easy.

Say "hello" again to Project Pan-Pontification.

[Harlequin]

Science is Science. It is a method of working.


People are People. They are subjective machines.


One can hope that, in the ideal situation, the objective and subjective aspects of scientists balance out. This is rarely, if ever, the case. Should Science be used for moral choices? No. Should moral choices be used for Science? No. They are co-dependant. They need to inform each other.


But then, once again, you realise that humans are part of the equation and it all fucks up, because there are some idiots who confuse the singular with the whole ("This science guy wants to cut up my dead gran to study! All of science is terrible!"). And, perhaps more tragically, confuse 'Scientists' with Science. People who practise the Scientific method of enquiry are Scientists. When they stop using Scientific methods and begin to add their own human means of deciding theories, then they are no longer Scientists. This can be both positive and negative. But it's something that needs to be accounted for, which it quite clearly is not in most media.

[Kai]

Science is Science. It is a method of working.


People are People. They are subjective machines.


One can hope that, in the ideal situation, the objective and subjective aspects of scientists balance out. This is rarely, if ever, the case. Should Science be used for moral choices? No. Should moral choices be used for Science? No. They are co-dependant. They need to inform each other.


But then, once again, you realise that humans are part of the equation and it all fucks up, because there are some idiots who confuse the singular with the whole ("This science guy wants to cut up my dead gran to study! All of science is terrible!"). And, perhaps more tragically, confuse 'Scientists' with Science. People who practise the Scientific method of enquiry are Scientists. When they stop using Scientific methods and begin to add their own human means of deciding theories, then they are no longer Scientists. This can be both positive and negative. But it's something that needs to be accounted for, which it quite clearly is not in most media.

Theres also something to be said that the Scientific Method (and all of the stuff that goes along with it, like verification and falsifiabilty) are all part of the philosophy of science, and some parts are still not widely agreed upon. Most of what we consider modern scientific philosophy was written out by Karl Popper in his stuff about critical rationalism in the 20th century, its not that old. The scientific method isn't just something that happens, you have to think about it actively and know how it works and know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning and what a hypothesis is and a theory and a law, and you have to know how to use falsifiability in practice and how experimental design works etc etc etc. Its not the simplest thing on the planet. Unless you are in biology, people seldom go into the details of this stuff. I don't know why they don't do it in physics or chemistry or whathaveyou (in my past experience) but in biology you are taught the scientific method, falsifiability and experimental design from day one.

Its not easy, is I guess what I'm saying. I'm in a masters program and I'm just now learning about this stuff from the root, from Darwin and Popper, from the original literature that spawned the notions that many people take as law now. Its not easy and you have to work at it, and most people are not as scientifically read as I.

[Vene]

I don't know why they don't do it in physics or chemistry or whathaveyou (in my past experience) but in biology you are taught the scientific method, falsifiability and experimental design from day one.

I have a fair bit of chemistry experience (although I'm still working on a bachelors) and the chemistry courses do teach about methodology, falsifiability, and experimental design.  There's also an emphasis on data collection and figuring out what is and isn't relevant (often using statistics).