How Moral Is Science?

[Larniavc]

Yep, Dr Mengele...anything to say about the funding of his science?

My Godwin, do you honestly want me to answer that question?

 

[just a believing guy]

My Godwin, do you honestly want me to answer that question?

Yep...how many prospective Dr Mengeles are out there do you think?

 

[Larniavc]

Yep, Dr Mengele...anything to say about the funding of his science?

My Godwin, do you really want me to answer that question?

Yep...

The NAZIS!

*The crowd goes wild*

*Sound of the mic dropping*

In an after broadcast interview Larnievc commented "Well, Ted. I certainly wasn't looking for it but it kinda dropped into my lap. So, I'm going to take it easy for a bit, rest up, spend a bit of time with my family."

 

[just a believing guy]

The NAZIS!

*The crowd goes wild*

*Sound of the mic dropping*

In an after broadcast interview Larnievc commented "Well, Ted. I certainly wasn't looking for it but it kinda dropped into my lap. So, I'm going to take it easy for a bit, rest up, spend a bit of time with my family."

Sweet...

 

[DaisyDay]

Sweet...

Um, when you Godwin an argument, you automatically forfeit - you lose.

 

[Belk]

Um, when you Godwin an argument, you automatically forfeit - you lose.

And he was doing so well up to that point.

 

[just a believing guy]

And he was doing so well up to that point.

No, he wasn't. One judges the work by the final result.

 

[quatona]

Yep...how many prospective Dr Mengeles are out there do you think?

Don´t know - but at this point theistic Jihadists and such seem to be more of a pressing problem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Any thoughts?

The practice of science?

I'ld say it is extremely moral, because knowledge is a good thing.

In fact, scientific progress is what drives moral development, because through science we can understand the consequences of our actions.

You can't make moral evaluations of actions, if you don't know what the consequences of those actions are.

 

[just a believing guy]

The practice of science?

I'ld say it is extremely moral, because knowledge is a good thing.

In fact, scientific progress is what drives moral development, because through science we can understand the consequences of our actions.

You can't make moral evaluations of actions, if you don't know what the consequences of those actions are.

How exactly can we understand the consequences of our actions through science? And what about the medicine, physics etc. of the 19th century, for example? Although outdated, they are still considered science even today.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How exactly can we understand the consequences of our actions through science?

Because you need to know how the world works before you can predict the impact of an action. That's not hard to understand, I'ld think.

For example...
Take plumbing. The word itself betrays its roots: the latin plumbum, which means lead.
In ancient Rome, lead was the material of choice for plumbing. Little did they know that lead is highly toxic for humans and that using it for water transporation is very very bad idea health-wise.

Today, through science, we know that it is a health hazard.
If TODAY a plumber would use lead pipes, it would be extremely immoral, because common knowledge dictates that this water will end up poisoning people.

So, that's how. Through science, we learn about reality. Through science, we learned that lead is very toxic. So, we stop using it for plumbing.

And what about the medicine, physics etc. of the 19th century, for example? Although outdated, they are still considered science even today.

But outdated. Why would you base anything on outdated scientific models, which have been replaced with newer and better ones?

 

[quatona]

By science I mean scientists...

How moral are knife users?

 

[just a believing guy]

Because you need to know how the world works before you can predict the impact of an action. That's not hard to understand, I'ld think.

For example...
Take plumbing. The word itself betrays its roots: the latin plumbum, which means lead.
In ancient Rome, lead was the material of choice for plumbing. Little did they know that lead is highly toxic for humans and that using it for water transporation is very very bad idea health-wise.

Today, through science, we know that it is a health hazard.
If TODAY a plumber would use lead pipes, it would be extremely immoral, because common knowledge dictates that this water will end up poisoning people.

So, that's how. Through science, we learn about reality. Through science, we learned that lead is very toxic. So, we stop using it for plumbing.



But outdated. Why would you base anything on outdated scientific models, which have been replaced with newer and better ones?

Still, in some countries which are atheistic (take China for example) I'd bet they use led for piping...

Are you saying that science has nothing to learn and apply from outdated scientific models? I'd bet it does, and uses outdated knowledge in lack of new discoveries, regardless if it's moral or not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Still, in some countries which are atheistic (take China for example) I'd bet they use led for piping...

You'ld "bet"?

Not sure why you seem to think again that it is relevant to single out atheism once more...
I could start explaining to you that "state atheism" in communist nations, isn't really what sensible people would agree with (including myself), but I think it will just go in one ear and out the other...

Instead, I'll just say that "atheists" don't have a monopoly on rationality.
An atheist is perfectly capable of believing nonsense as much as the next guy.
Once more, atheism only refers to disbelief of supernatural deities and stuff.

Are you saying that science has nothing to learn and apply from outdated scientific models?

As a matter of history, perhaps.
Otherwise, not really....

For example... if you wish to build a GPS satellite and only consider newtonian physics while ignoring "einsteinian" physics, your GPS simply will not work.

 

[just a believing guy]

You'ld "bet"?

Not sure why you seem to think again that it is relevant to single out atheism once more...
I could start explaining to you that "state atheism" in communist nations, isn't really what sensible people would agree with (including myself), but I think it will just go in one ear and out the other...

Instead, I'll just say that "atheists" don't have a monopoly on rationality.
An atheist is perfectly capable of believing nonsense as much as the next guy.
Once more, atheism only refers to disbelief of supernatural deities and stuff.



As a matter of history, perhaps.
Otherwise, not really....

For example... if you wish to build a GPS satellite and only consider newtonian physics while ignoring "einsteinian" physics, your GPS simply will not work.

No, it also works in Vietnam, and Vietnam is more prosperous than other communist countries, yet they too use outdated methods, and knowing the spitefulness of the atheist Vietnamese they would use led for their pipings rather than plastic.

So, why are atheists spiteful?

You say ''capable of believing nonsense'' and not ''ready to believe nonsense''...

Are you saying that historical scientific methods aren't used / taught by today's science in order to better today's science?

 

[Belk]

No, he wasn't. One judges the work by the final result.

One does. That is why my comment was meant to be taken as irony.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it also works in Vietnam, and Vietnam is more prosperous than other communist countries, yet they too use outdated methods, and knowing the spitefulness of the atheist Vietnamese they would use led for their pipings rather than plastic.

So, why are atheists spiteful?

Why are catholic priests, pedophiles?

(note: I don't believe such, just trying to show you how nonsensical your reasoning is)