Non-Scientific Types Sequester Advancement

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: BigJ
Only allowing experiments on a willing subject is an example of morals and ethics interfering with science.

Exactly.

You made an overly broad statement. I believe what you mean is stuff like stem cell research. You oppose people who don't allow it because of religious reasons, correct?

 

[davestar]

(1) misused and awkard vocabulary - check
(2) half-formed idea full of holes - check
(3) arguing semantics - check

classic internet debate

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: davestar
(1) misused and awkard vocabulary - check
(2) half-formed idea full of holes - check
(3) arguing semantics - check

classic internet debate

Us elves don't take sh!t from you crabs.

 

[Stiganator]

The assumption was made to account for that amoungst many other reasons. That statement, should be all the ethics required, yes or no?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
The assumption was made to account for that amoungst many other reasons. That statement, should be all the ethics required, yes or no?

There-in lies the problem. I would question the sanity of any person that would consent to having a vivisection performed on them.

 

[GasX]

You have a good thesis for a term paper there, but you will have to work on your wording as it is currently awkward.

As a standalone statement it is complete bunk. You have to get to some examples quick or lose the audience.

Oh, and do your own homework...

 

[Stiganator]

This world takes all types, so hopefully the pre-clinical testing would screen out the clinically insane. But maybe someone would offer a vivisection, perhaps someone terminally ill. Might be tough to get a PI for that though.

 

[Albatross]

you assume too much.
if humans have immortal souls science is certainly useful but that`s about it.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
This world takes all types, so hopefully the pre-clinical testing would screen out the clinically insane. But maybe someone would offer a vivisection, perhaps someone terminally ill. Might be tough to get a PI for that though.

You write like a kid with a junior high education and a college edition thesaurus.

What does this paragraph mean/say?

 

[GasX]

The real problem with your initial idea is that it is so broad. Certain situations apply and would make for good conversation and/or discussion. However, the need for ethical oversight of research is crucial and its absence would lead to horrible horrible things. Starting out saying that "it" stifles research is so obviously wrong that any salient points you want to make will be lost. In fact, real world examples of the horrors of no ethical oversight and the benefits of having it are plentiful.

 

[Stiganator]

It means some people might find if their life is most certainly at its end, they might find it noble to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of their fellow man. Testing would ensure they were not completely out of it. It is improbably, but plausible still. PI means principle investigator in this case it would be a scientist/doctor if a vivisection were in question.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
It means some people might find if their life is most certainly at its end, they might find it noble to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of their fellow man. Testing would ensure they were not completely out of it. It is improbably, but plausible still. PI means principle investigator in this case it would be a scientist/doctor if a vivisection were in question.

Vivisection is by definition on animals...

I know all about PIs and ethics boards and also a funny thing called the Hippocratic Oath.

No ethics board in the country would allow human vivisection no matter how terminally ill the subject was unless the the procedure was of such a minor nature as to be trivial. The most traumatic procedure I could think of would be the collection of bone marrow.

Any research conduction research like this without the oversight of an ethics committee would be shunned by the scientific community and probably get arrested and/or sued into oblivion.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: 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.

Anyone?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: 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.

Anyone?

We actually learned quite a bit from the unethical human experiments conducted by the Nazis and Japanese during WWII.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: 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.

Anyone?

So, tying women's legs together during labor to see how much pain they could take before dying is a bad thing? I don't know about the so called "scientific establishment";s view, but mMengele was a visionary...

 

[Stiganator]

well he was, performed heinous acts towards his goal however.

 

[Stiganator]

how about a rewording? Would a reduction in bueracratic ethics assist the advancement of science?

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
how about a rewording? Would a reduction in bueracratic ethics assist the advancement of science?

ok, this is ridiculous. ethics as applied to science is an interesting topic, but all the wrong questions are being asked by the original poster. OBVIOUSLY ethical considerations prevent us from performing experiments which would likely add to scientific understanding.

for example, Henry M., a fellow who had his hippocampus removed in an attempt to cure his epilepsy, cannot form long term memories. we've learned much about memory formation thanks to his misfortune, but no person in his right mind would condone chopping out portions of people's brains in order to gather data.

the real question to ask are how to balance ethics and science. the scope of that question, however, far exceeds what any discussion here on ATOT could cover - hence the bickering over semantics.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
how about a rewording? Would a reduction in bueracratic ethics assist the advancement of science?

I would take it from the other direction.

"Does the bureaucracy of ethics hinder scientific advancement?"

You could focus on the affirmative side, but you better mention the negative. Be sure to read about the FDA's role in stopping Thalidomide from getting approval in the USA for treatment of morning sickness.

 

[JACKHAMMER]

Originally posted by: robothouse77
"those who can't, teach"

What does this have to do with the thread???😕 And BTW, I have had some very good teachers who left very real jobs b/c they wanted to help kids out. I know this is a web forum, but try not to be a blatant ass.

 

[Mo0o]

The drive for scientific knowledge should be reined in by some kind more moral code and ethics. Some knowledge is simply too costly to obtain.