Why do you think that asking questions, making a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis and writing down the results is unethical?
Why do you think the context of the testing doesn’t matter?
You said “science”, not any specific type or category of study, so if you mean a specific school of science is unethical you should make that distinction.
Yes, because context matters. Exceptions don’t make the rule, and speaking generally about things is allowed when they are related.
If you want to get into the semantics feel free. My statement is broad because it is a “shower thought”.
This isn’t debate club.
This isn’t debate club.
If people aren’t suppose to discuss and possibly disagree, why post? What do you think is the purpose of the showerthoughts community?
If people aren’t suppose to discuss and possibly disagree, why post?
I am open to discussion and disagreement. Look around the thread and tell me how many opening comments you see promoting discussion or civil disagreement.
What do you think is the purpose of the showerthoughts community?
To share “Shower thoughts”.
Crazy concept I know.
I see a bunch of people posting civil and reasonable issues with the thinking behind your shower thought, and then you replying in an immature and disingenuous manner. I think the contrasting upvotes / downvotes in your comments vs everyone elses suggests that my interpretation is shared by the wider community.
I almost didn’t comment because I thought from your behaviour it was obvious trolling, and there’s no point reasoning with trolls. But looking through your post history, you seem like you’re generally posting on good faith, so I thought I’d try and explain that you do not need to react so defensively to legitamate discussion and disagreement.
A shower thought doesn’t need to be factually correct to be interesting, but when you post a pretty extreme take on a serious and sensitive subject, it isn’t surprising that people are going to clarify where you’ve gone wrong.
This isn’t a serious or sensitive topic, and I engaged people as they engaged me. If you actually looked at the thread you would see me engage like a jerk when people engaged me in bad faith, and engaged in good faith conversation with those who engaged in good faith.
Go police someone else. I never asked for your opinion.
Yes, because context matters. Exceptions don’t make the rule, and speaking generally about things is allowed when they are related.
So what is the exception here? You said, and I quote, “science is by nature unethical”. So you’re saying any experimental methodology in any school of science exploring any number of completely benign things is somehow unethical.
This isn’t debate club.
I see you’re new to the internet.
Yes. Poking and prodding everything with no mind for repercussion is unethical, and that is where “Science” is rooted.
Now jog on.
Wut
Is the sentence hard to understand?
You just lumped all of “science” together. Even the science of documenting birdsong?
Can you tell me what goes in to the Science of birdsong? I am unfamiliar with the field and expect you to be able to give me a detailed response on what goes in to it as it is your example.
No thanks, this is too shallow of a shower thought.
No thanks, this is too shallow of a shower thought.
Why bother engaging in the first place if you won’t follow up?
It’s not hard to understand, despite being badly formulated, it’s just very questionable.
What about my statement is badly formulated? If it is questionable, where are your questions?
You could’ve said “science is unethical by nature”, or “science is, by nature, unethical”, with commas. Those would be well formulated sentences, which would be easier to read and make sense of.
About the questions: do you oppose all ethical guidelines in science? Are there any you’re fond of? Or should science be completely unimpeded, regardless of who it damages, or what purpose it serves? Can you give any examples?
As I said, very questionable.
You could’ve said “science is unethical by nature”, or “science is, by nature, unethical”, with commas. Those would be well formulated sentences, which would be easier to read and make sense of.
You understood exactly what I meant.
About the questions: do you oppose all ethical guidelines in science? Are there any you’re fond of? Or should science be completely unimpeded, regardless of who it damages, or what purpose it serves? Can you give any examples?
I don’t oppose ethical guidelines because they are required to keep Scientific Study in check. I never stated that Science did not need ethical frameworks, I said they are detrimental to Scientific Study. Ethical frameworks hold back Study because of the damage it can do. That doesn’t mean progress is not slowed because of those safe guards.
If Scientific study is ethical, why do we require ethical frame works to keep Scientific study from being unethical?
As I said, very questionable.
It is only questionable because of the numerous assumptions you made about me as a person, followed by engaging me in bad faith because of those assumptions.
Yes, I understood exactly what you said because, as I said before, it’s not hard to understand, it’s just badly formulated.
Natural science is amoral, a jaguar doesn’t care that a gazelle is pregnant when hunting it, since neither of them know what morality is. Scientific research is not naturally moral or immoral, it’s instance dependant. You wouldn’t call Volta immoral for stacking zinc and copper to make a battery, and you wouldn’t think twice before calling Unit 731 immoral.
You don’t get to make a normative claim, wrap it in a false equivalence between human constructs, like scientific research and morality, and the moral independency of natural science, word it inches away from historical fascist research ideals, and then complain when people fill in the blanks in the most plausible way. If you wanted a real discussion, you could’ve developed, from the start, on what you mean, and worded it better. But you didn’t, you’re just rage baiting.
This is shower thoughts and you are responsible for your own “rage” you feel I “baited” because you are too ignorant to entertain any idea you don’t understand. Which is the problem, you don’t understand and you are mad about it so you shoot the messenger.
Ignorant humans sure like to hide behind emotional response instead of using logical thought.
Found the psychopathic scientist!
Don’t excuse a Nazi with mental disorders. Who do you think a person like this would choose to be unethical with? his parents? No probably the people he hates.
This is incredibly ignorant, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Says the guy who thinks Mengele had a point.
I never said that. You have a reach like Mr. Tickle.
I don’t think you know enough about history then love. You said exactly that. It’s not a problem to make a mistake but you either say sorry or stand by what you said, don’t just come with this “thats not what I said” shit
I don’t think you know enough about anything to be speaking to me sweetums, and I won’t apologize for you being a psycho.
You’re kinda a moron, aren’t you? :( Please, stay off the internet for now. You’re shitting the place up, but also, you’re probably deeply confused. You’re clearly learning to parrot words and ideas back at people, so thats progress! Parroting is a precursor to understanding language more properly, so keep at it!
Have you ever asked a Scientist how they feel about the impacts of ethical frameworks on their study?
This is some Josef Mengele type of shit. Hope you like the tropical sun
