Quote:
Science is always imploring us to use its 'breakthroughs'.
The selfish gene? Yes, its old testament ethics resurrected.
Psychology, medicine, therapy? Social Ethics is their foundation, their guide.
If you say that 'finding out things' defines the neutral activities of science, then you are wrong. First the 'things' we define, look for, interpret as, or find out, are defined by ethics. Second, if science is merely 'finding out' then when did we ever not engage in this activity? Science is not the process of finding out.
You are wrong.
Science is a process. It is
people who implore you to do things.
Let's take the cure for Polio. It was discovered that we could develop a vaccine that could save lives by preventing this disease.
This was just a fact. Whether we should distribute it, to whom and how... or even whether it is right to save lives this way, are not scientific questions. In fact, there are still people who, aware of the scientific fact that the vaccine stops polio, believe that it is unethical to give kids this vaccine.
How was the polio vaccine developed.
Well, as you say it was society that decided that a cure for polio was a priority. Society made a big investment and offered fame and fortune to the scientists who met this challenge.
This decision was based on the values (or ethics if you will) of society, not on the process of science.
When society decides that there is an ethics based priority, it can motivate science to act, and in the case of facts based, objectively measured goals like eradicating polio, science often succeeds brilliantly.
But science is a process. It says nothing about ethics.