Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@High Seas,

Quote:

I can't agree. Science per se has neither ethics nor morals - how could it?

I thought I was saying exactly that.....
Previously it has had religion based morality from religion in society and history. The more technology increases into nooks and crannies the less obvious the correct behaviour is, although they are still using previous standards established by religion.

Quote:

If you don't look, how can you ever hope to find?

So nothing is sacred ? Why dont we torture people to find out about pain ? It is in the name of science after all. How can we hope to find out if we dont look ?

I was a bit confused by your drill/nail point. Any chance of a revised version for dummies ?

Quote:

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

So nothing is sacred ? Why dont we torture people to find out about pain

Im curious, how would your pwerfect world make the decision as to what scientifc principles to follow? When do you invoke an estoppel on all research that seems to be getting close to some moral nodal pont?

Curious.

3 Replies

@Ionus,

OK, so the first point is settled. As to the drill, etc - I explained it badly, so I'll try again: my first physics schoolbook gave the example of a spinning top and stated that the mass and the weight of the top remain the same whether the top is stationary or it's spinning - no matter how fast. That was wrong. The top really does weigh more when it's spinning really very, very fast. That always seemed to me intuitively obvious and I was glad it was subsequently corrected in more advanced textbooks. The excerpt I quoted explains it more clearly; it's about a quarter into this, the complete text of 3 lectures:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8773894/Meaning-of-It-All-by-Feynman-Nobel-Laureate

2 Replies

@farmerman,

There's plenty of pain around even without torturing anybody. There's plenty to be discovered about pain mechanisms in an effort to alleviate already existing pain - seems to me that's a non-issue, or rather, it's an undecidable issue because the intent of the action must be considered. Intent isn't a scientific concept, result is. To see this, consider what happens if you take somebody and cut, poison, and burn him - sounds like torture, right? But these 3 (operations, chemotherapies, radiation treatments) are our only cures for cancers. Only results count in science, not intent, ethics, or morals.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Agreed its a non issue to most people , but here we are trying to get through to a doctrenairian who makes these occasional leaps of logic to try to impress some point that humans can only reach there summa potentia by following some described " perfect way". ie a religion based on the Myths of Abraham.

I am still urious, lest the point be disissed entirely, "How are these decisions made about when and where to abandon some scientific research that , in Ionus mind, has reached some forbidden point to proceed no further.

Weve both stateds that science is AMORAL. To which my follow up is
SO WHAT?
and then
on the heels with
WHERE DO YOU PROPOSE TO MAKE AND ENFORCE SOME KIND OF "TABOO" agsinst research.

The entire discipline for Global TEctonics and Continental Drift was based upon weapons research to enhance our abilities to detect and destroy submarines with pinpoint accuracy.

The science of radiochemistry was heavily dependent upon the development of the atomic pile at University of Chicago , which was another weapons program.

Transfer of gene substructures from chromosomal to epigenetic boundaries was a finding that owed much of its being to Vietnam war weaponization of organophosphate and organochlorine agricultural chemicals.

Is it ok to only do reserach for weapons but any secondary discoveries must be abandoned because war is "OK" (as a "just war) but a potential medical finding that results from the weapons research is NOT?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I don't know what answer Ionus will give but I have to leave, so I'll give you what I think is the source of all this confusion: it's the attempt to introduce ethics (or morals, or religion, or superstition, or any other belief system, by definition subjective) into scientific inquiry. Actually the cancer cures we have are a good example: there's a religious sect (can't remember what it's called now) whose members refuse all such treatments on principle. As long as they only decide for themselves they should be left alone. But if they start deciding also for others - in not taking precautions, e.g. disinfection, quarantine, vaccination - their religious and other belief-system freedoms can and should be curtailed to protect those they might contact and endanger.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

The MAry BAker Eddy group has many stories where kids were denied treatment of chronic conditions (like diabetic shock) based upon thweir religious teachings. The results had been usually disastrous for the patient. For while much mdicine has proceeded into the 21 century, several sects (more like cults) have laid out a time line of discipline for thwir laity across which they must not follow IF they are to keep their good standing in their cult. Not accepting transfusion resulted in may kids dying of what would noramlly be a highly manageable chronic condition that, just because of some bullshit definition of "morality" resulted in the conditionturning acute critical and then fatal.
I haev very little pity for these self proclaimed "keepers of flames" when they try to foist their personal beliefs onto the rest of us.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Samuel Clemens' wife an a daughter became devotées of Mary Baker Eddy, and they both died in terrible pain. Clemens wrote a book entitled Christian Science, which was withdrawn by the publisher shortly after publication due to the public outcry. The thing was, it wasn't because there were all that many "Christian Scientists" out there, it was because the religious sects closed ranks on the principle that an assault on any one of them, no matter how goofy, was an assault on them all. The book was reprinted in a sturdy paper bound edition in the early 1990s, after more than 80 years out of print. This is his commet on "Mother" Eddy:

Mrs. Eddy is a very unsound Christian Scientist, and needs disciplining. I believe she has a serious malady--"self-deification."

2 Replies

@Setanta,

The damn hellof ot was that I had the Cosmopolitan Articles about Eddy and Xtian Csience in general that were written by Clemens and when I got this Apple laptop, I shitcanned whole bunches of files when I shoulda copied the damn things for future reference. Only you would remind me that I had the basic "manusceript" which Hamlin boosted into a book.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Mrs. Eddy is a very unsound Christian Scientist, and needs disciplining. I believe she has a serious malady--"self-deification."

His writing, like curry on a boiled lobster,showed us that often, less is more..

0 Replies

@farmerman,

So now we have the "insurance gang(sters)", "if", "If", "Minimouse", "stupid electorate" and the "antiquated electoral college".

The courts put Mr Bush in 2000 and you are always praising the courts. Judges can do no wrong if they decide it to your approval and they are antiquated if they don't.

Those are not arguments fm. They are whines.

What about the NCSE gang? The Media gang? The Dem's gang? The Wall Street gang? The Military gang? etc etc.

What if the economy doesn't turn mightily?

Minimouse was candidate for VP and won many states. (oops--sorry-- many states fell for her).

The electoral college is Constitutional isn't it. And you're a Constitution quoter. (When it's convenient I mean).

And the whole lot of them were educated by the American system. Similar families, similar schools, similar movies and TV programmes, similar colleges and universities. Standard US citizens.

You're just a cantankerous old eccentric.

You're like a dog that barks at passing cars. The whole system is a conspiracy to do you down and you're one of the most privileged people who ever lived.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Quote:

The top really does weigh more when it's spinning really very, very fast.

Cripes!! You lot must be very heavy then.

0 Replies

Here ya go, FM, click here to go to the Guttenberg Project's download page for the book. You'll see a tab marked "Download," and you can get another copy. Although that's probably the book and not the pamphlet.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

WHERE DO YOU PROPOSE TO MAKE AND ENFORCE SOME KIND OF "TABOO" agsinst research.

In the political process of course. You sought to enforce a taboo by referring to a nature film as "monkey porn" like the good, little Puritan you are. I presume you know that "porn" movies (officially approved ones I mean) are not only big business but have Library of Congress catalogue numbers and copyright protection.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

pwerfect

I didnt know you had a lisp.

Quote:

how would your pwerfect world make the decision as to what scientifc principles to follow?

You follow those principles that are readily accepted BUT you also teach students the problems areas. You do not, as many Uni teachers demand, complete obedience.....this is ego driven by a pack of old farts going through a crises of self-esteem.

Quote:

When do you invoke an estoppel on all research that seems to be getting close to some moral nodal pont?

When you are sacrificing good after bad. When to help people to recover from paralysis from a car accident, you use a fetus injected into them rather than address the cause. Adult people are a throw away commodity. The future of the human race is not.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

but here we are trying to get through to a doctrenairian who makes these occasional leaps of logic to try to impress some point that humans can only reach there summa potentia by following some described " perfect way". ie a religion based on the Myths of Abraham.

You can not read. Do you think you are foolong anyone but the people who vote you up when you lose the plot like that ? Read my lips......I AM NOT RELIGIOUS. Yeah I know, it is only the hundredth time I have told you and you are a wrote learner. But you really should be doing better than this.

Quote:

WHERE DO YOU PROPOSE TO MAKE AND ENFORCE SOME KIND OF "TABOO" agsinst research.

In medicine, where we keep alive old farts at the cost of the new. He is only 92.....he doesnt want to die.....

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

You follow those principles that are readily accepted BUT you also teach students the problems areas. You do not, as many Uni teachers demand, complete obedience......

What principles are you talking about? This entire statemnet is rubbish. You do not even say anything woth debating (except the fact that the statetment is truly rubbish.

Quote:

this is ego driven by a pack of old farts going through a crises of self-esteem

Do you have some connection to some facts that even support this .

Quote:

You can not read. Do you think you are foolong anyone but the people who vote you up when you lose the plot like that ? Read my lips......I AM NOT RELIGIOUS.

This aint about you. Its about YOUR argument, which has been in support of some religiously backed sense of morality which "Should" drive reearch. Are you now divorcing yourself from that doctrine?

Quote:

In medicine, where we keep alive old farts at the cost of the new. He is only 92.....he doesnt want to die.....

Youd fit in tne Teabagger movement really tight. They copme up with these bilaterally self cancelling arguments all the time. Medical research is and should be amoral, it follows the science. The science becomes applied via BLP's and by governmental oversight panels re efficacy , safety, and longterm benefit. Keeping agers alive has , apparently not been the driving force of our med research (otherwise there would be many more meds for Alzheimers).

You need to regroup and come up with some kind of argument that is sound. AND, if you want to make it appear that you are holding 2 opposing ideas in your mind at the same time, get better at that too.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Thanks, I just downloaded the PDF. I had the Cosmo Articles that were compiled into the book and I had all 6 (I believe it was 6). Oh well, the info is whats important.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

this is ego driven by a pack of old farts going through a crises of self-esteem.

Do you have some connection to some facts that even support this .

I do fm. "This" is your position in the debate, you're an old fart and your obsession with self-esteem you wear as a badge in your posts and I must admit with the desired effect on certain of our members who seem to look up to your wisdom with a degree of awestruck longing.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

What principles are you talking about?

If pleading stupidity is to be your main argument you might be better after nap time.

Quote:

Quote:
You do not, as many Uni teachers demand, complete obedience.....this is ego driven by a pack of old farts going through a crises of self-esteem.

Do you have some connection to some facts that even support this .

Are you new to this thread ?

Quote:

Its about YOUR argument, which has been in support of some religiously backed sense of morality which "Should" drive reearch. Are you now divorcing yourself from that doctrine?

Then dont tell me what I am. Attack my opinion without me in it. I am not divorcing myself from that position. Where do scientists get their morality from or do you believe scientists have no morality ?

Quote:

Medical research is and should be amoral, it follows the science.

I find this statement stunning. Why do medical research if not for moral reasons ?

Quote:

Keeping agers alive has , apparently not been the driving force of our med research (otherwise there would be many more meds for Alzheimers).

Compare the cost of the research employed on giving 70 yr olds 7 years of life compared to 7 yr olds 70 years of life. Children dont vote or have large sums of excess money.

1 Reply

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know