Non-Scientific Types Sequester Advancement

[Stiganator]

Now, I would like to point out I am not "dissing" liberal eder's out there (well not in a mean way). This is more of a "what if" post.

Here is the position.


Disciplines based on ambiguity i.e. non-scientific, non-provable are slowing the advancement of technological innovation. We would be far more advanced if they simply did nothing as opposed to hold up innovation with moral and ethical rhetoric. Things such as sociology, ethics etc were created because these people are incapable or unwilling to practice science and had to create a niche for their own survival and self-importance.

<Revision 0.1>
Assumption 1: The aforementioned science is preformed on willing subjects in the case of humans. The subject must be able to demonstrate human cognition, understanding, and self-awareness or the subject is not considered human.

 

[robothouse77]

"those who can't, teach"

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
Now, I would like to point out I am not "dissing" liberal eder's out there (well not in a mean way). This is more of a "what if" post.

Here is the position.

Disciplines based on ambiguity i.e. non-scientific, non-provable are slowing the advancement of technological innovation. We would be far more advanced if they simply did nothing as opposed to hold up innovation with moral and ethical rhetoric. Things such as sociology, ethics etc were created because these people are incapable or unwilling to practice science and had to create a niche for their own survival and self-importance.

Untrue. Ethics and morals are a necessary part of science. Or do you approve of the tests done by Nazi Germany? How about human testing for drugs with unknown side-effects? I'm sure a few hundred years ago they could have learned much more about human anatomy if they slowly dissected living humans.

 

[BigJ]

Moral and ethical rhetoric?

I guess you won't mind then if we use you for a vivisection.

 

[Stiganator]

Well from a scientific standpoint the nazi scientists may have found interesting data. I'm not very familiar with what all they did specifically. Knowing the general background I'll assume it was incredibly attrocious.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
Well from a scientific standpoint the nazi scientists may have found interesting data. I'm not very familiar with what all they did specifically. Knowing the general background I'll assume is was incredibly attrocious.

Science without ethics is just reckless endangerment of mankind.

 

[Stiganator]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Stiganator
Now, I would like to point out I am not "dissing" liberal eder's out there (well not in a mean way). This is more of a "what if" post.

Here is the position.

Disciplines based on ambiguity i.e. non-scientific, non-provable are slowing the advancement of technological innovation. We would be far more advanced if they simply did nothing as opposed to hold up innovation with moral and ethical rhetoric. Things such as sociology, ethics etc were created because these people are incapable or unwilling to practice science and had to create a niche for their own survival and self-importance.

Untrue. Ethics and morals are a necessary part of science. Or do you approve of the tests done by Nazi Germany? How about human testing for drugs with unknown side-effects? I'm sure a few hundred years ago they could have learned much more about human anatomy if they slowly dissected living humans.

Not to point you out specifically, but you illustrate a good point.

Untrue. Ethics and morals are a necessary part of science. Or do you approve of the tests done by Nazi Germany?

The argument is immediately tainted with things that are unable to be substantiated. Approval is a moral/ethical matter. There is no way to prove it correct, like comparing efficiencies or yields. It is essentially, a recursive loop. You are justifying one intangible with another intangible. Science makes more sense to me at least, since positions are backed up by factual observation.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Stiganator

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Stiganator
Now, I would like to point out I am not "dissing" liberal eder's out there (well not in a mean way). This is more of a "what if" post.

Here is the position.

Disciplines based on ambiguity i.e. non-scientific, non-provable are slowing the advancement of technological innovation. We would be far more advanced if they simply did nothing as opposed to hold up innovation with moral and ethical rhetoric. Things such as sociology, ethics etc were created because these people are incapable or unwilling to practice science and had to create a niche for their own survival and self-importance.

Untrue. Ethics and morals are a necessary part of science. Or do you approve of the tests done by Nazi Germany? How about human testing for drugs with unknown side-effects? I'm sure a few hundred years ago they could have learned much more about human anatomy if they slowly dissected living humans.

Not to point you out specifically, but you illustrate a good point.

Untrue. Ethics and morals are a necessary part of science. Or do you approve of the tests done by Nazi Germany?

The argument is immediately tainted with things that are unable to be substantiated. Approval is a moral/ethical matter. There is no way to prove it correct, like comparing efficiencies or yields. It is essentially, a recursive loop. You are justifying one intangible with another intangible. Science makes more sense to me at least, since positions are backed up by factual observation.

Basically you want an apathetic world where no one cares what anyone else does. All they want is forward progress, no matter what the cost. Sounds like fun.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Stiganator

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Stiganator
Now, I would like to point out I am not "dissing" liberal eder's out there (well not in a mean way). This is more of a "what if" post.

Here is the position.

Disciplines based on ambiguity i.e. non-scientific, non-provable are slowing the advancement of technological innovation. We would be far more advanced if they simply did nothing as opposed to hold up innovation with moral and ethical rhetoric. Things such as sociology, ethics etc were created because these people are incapable or unwilling to practice science and had to create a niche for their own survival and self-importance.

Untrue. Ethics and morals are a necessary part of science. Or do you approve of the tests done by Nazi Germany? How about human testing for drugs with unknown side-effects? I'm sure a few hundred years ago they could have learned much more about human anatomy if they slowly dissected living humans.

Not to point you out specifically, but you illustrate a good point.

Untrue. Ethics and morals are a necessary part of science. Or do you approve of the tests done by Nazi Germany?

The argument is immediately tainted with things that are unable to be substantiated. Approval is a moral/ethical matter. There is no way to prove it correct, like comparing efficiencies or yields. It is essentially, a recursive loop. You are justifying one intangible with another intangible. Science makes more sense to me at least, since positions are backed up by factual observation.

Your genes are tainted and would do harm to the gene pool. From a purely scientific standpoint, I should kill you.

The world would be an absolute horrible place without morals and ethics.

 

[Stiganator]

You see, you failed to back up your reasoning with any form of logic, why are they tainted, how do you know since you have never examined them?

There obviously should be morals and ethics since not everyone is on the same page. But if everyone were, it seems like they wouldn't be necessary any longer or at least in the current form.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
You see, you failed to back up your reasoning with any form of logic, why are they tainted, how do you know since you have never examined them?

There obviously should be morals and ethics since not everyone is on the same page. But if everyone were, it seems like they wouldn't be necessary any longer or at least in the current form.

Your reasoning makes absolutely no sense. "If everyone were on the same page (morally and ethically), we wouldn't need morals or ethics."

Read that and tell me it doesn't sound incredibly dumb.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
You see, you failed to back up your reasoning with any form of logic, why are they tainted, how do you know since you have never examined them?

There obviously should be morals and ethics since not everyone is on the same page. But if everyone were, it seems like they wouldn't be necessary any longer or at least in the current form.

Do you know what a hypothetical situation is?

If your genes are tainted, then by you reproducing, or even continuing to exist in society, you are contributing to unnecessary problems in society and making scientists divert resources towards you that would otherwise go towards the advancement of the human race. No morals, no ethics taken into account. You should be executed to save these resources and prevent any future problems.

 

[Stiganator]

You did not point out it was a hypothetical situation, so it looked more like flaming. Also, genetics is science. Learning how to cure an ailment is progress.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
You did not point out it was a hypothetical situation, so it looked more like flaming. Also, genetics is science. Learning how to cure an ailment is progress.

Why waste time curing an ailment only certain humans will possess because of their genes?

From a purely scientific standpoint, we should sterilize or kill all people with inferior genes, so we can contribute all our scientific resources to prolonging the lives of the healthiest and "best" human beings.

 

[Stiganator]

John, my quote is right above yours, so it should be apparent that it is taken out of context. .."in the current form." refers of course to the buericratic and rather unproductive uses to which it is put.

 

[JRich]

We need ethics. We need boundries! But, my beef is with money and science. Imagine how far advanced we could be if we were driven purely by knowledge and not greed or restricted by the necessity of money.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
You did not point out it was a hypothetical situation, so it looked more like flaming. Also, genetics is science. Learning how to cure an ailment is progress.

Wasting resources to cure a person of a genetic disease which could be put to better use? Why? You could make a more efficient energy source or travel to Mars with that money and time.

 

[Stiganator]

You seem to take things to extremes instead of following the whole statement. Advancement of science and knowledge. As long as it can be proven, it would be a science. Curing ailments would fit that. Execution, would not fit Assumption 1: Willing subject

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
Now, I would like to point out I am not "dissing" liberal eder's out there (well not in a mean way). This is more of a "what if" post.

Here is the position.


Disciplines based on ambiguity i.e. non-scientific, non-provable are slowing the advancement of technological innovation. We would be far more advanced if they simply did nothing as opposed to hold up innovation with moral and ethical rhetoric. Things such as sociology, ethics etc were created because these people are incapable or unwilling to practice science and had to create a niche for their own survival and self-importance.

<Revision 0.1>
Assumption 1: The aforementioned science is preformed on willing subjects in the case of humans. The subject must be able to demonstrate human cognition, understanding, and self-awareness or the subject is not considered human.

Prove to me that unbounded scientific advancement sans ethics is beneficial to mankind.

 

[shimsham]

its called human nature. until we are no longer human, it will always be a factor.

besides, it sounds like you mostly talking about medical science. i dont see morals becoming a factor in physics, astronomy, meterology, etc. politics, sure, but thats back to human nature, and i really dont see much morals or ethics in politics.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
You seem to take things to extremes instead of following the whole statement. Advancement of science and knowledge. As long as it can be proven, it would be a science. Curing ailments would fit that. Execution, would not fit Assumption 1: Willing subject

Why do you need a willing subject? You can't do it without their will? Isn't that ethical?

 

[Stiganator]

I agree with you as well JRich. There is too much junk in many things that has slowed our progress as a race.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
You seem to take things to extremes instead of following the whole statement. Advancement of science and knowledge. As long as it can be proven, it would be a science. Curing ailments would fit that. Execution, would not fit Assumption 1: Willing subject

Removing morals and ethics is taking things to an extreme. You're talking about how you're upset that morals and ethics are wasting scientific resources. So would be trying to cure ailments that only afflict people with certain genetic deficiencies. It makes sense that if you removed morals and ethics, you would remove working on diseases that affect defective genetics.

Only allowing experiments on a willing subject is an example of morals and ethics interfering with science.

 

[Stiganator]

I added revision 0.1 to appease what nigh everyone on the planet would concur is evil. Now, reconsider the above with that assumption.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
I added revision 0.1 to appease what nigh everyone on the planet would concur is evil. Now, reconsider the above with that assumption.

Why would it be evil? Evil is based on morals and ethics, which you certainly believe don't belong in science.