Science, Politics, Philosophy

[JohnStOnge]

Does anybody here really think science is or has ever been isolated from politics and philosophy?

Right now there's a very definite political/philosophical bias against human cloning. Is that a bad thing? Is that a good thing? Either way, it influences science.

How about the question of differences in mean aptitudes among racial groups? Does anybody really believe that philosophy doesn't influence science in that area? Do you really believe that, in today's society, someone who postulates that there is an innate difference in mean aptitude between what we call "racial groups" based on genetics is going to get a "fair" hearing in the realm of "science?"

How about environmental issues? Do you honestly believe someone who expresses a view contrary to the "environmentalist" point of view receives a "fair" hearing?

 

[thinking]

My opinion is that philosophy's influence on science is vital. I think we must always consider the moral implications of what we are doing scientifically. The tricky part is where to draw the line, personally I am against human cloning because of the questions that would arise. How would the clone be treated? Like a normal human being, or some kind of sub-human used for harvesting organs?

 

[IF_Common_29]

I am personally against cloning because of my beliefs...but does anybody know where specifically it says in the Bible how we have to reproduce? I mean it never says anything against assexual reproduction. If you consider cloning assexual reproduction. But thats beside the point...Human philosophy or how humans think will always have an influence on science. Since, politics are influenced by humans thoughts.. and the government sets regulations on what scientists can do it has a trickle affect on science.

 

[KittenKoder]

I am personally against cloning because of my beliefs...but does anybody know where specifically it says in the Bible how we have to reproduce? I mean it never says anything against assexual reproduction. If you consider cloning assexual reproduction. But thats beside the point...Human philosophy or how humans think will always have an influence on science. Since, politics are influenced by humans thoughts.. and the government sets regulations on what scientists can do it has a trickle affect on science.

It depends on the technique of cloning used. As long as they don't make exact copies, I'm okay with it, it's when they try to make exact copies of other beings that I don't like it. But specific cells or "parts" being cloned, like limbs or organs for repairs or eggs and sperm for procreation, I'm fine with that.

 

[IF_Common_29]

I guess the difference between humans and any other organism that can assexually reproduce. Is that they do it naturally, and we do it...i guess you could say artificially?

 

[KittenKoder]

I guess the difference between humans and any other organism that can assexually reproduce. Is that they do it naturally, and we do it...i guess you could say artificially?

It is an option and possibility with humans, and would be a great way to control reproduction. I give props to those who have themselves sterilized so they don't have to worry about it, while freezing stuff in case they change their mind, instead of leaving it to chance. It is the benefit of being more intelligent than other animals, the ability to make informed and thought out choices instead of acting like ... well, animals.

 

[Hillbilly]

I agree with KK. I think it's great when liberals choose to make themselves barren. Spay or neuter your liberal today!

 

[JBeukema]

it's when they try to make exact copies of other beings that I don't like it

Why? and please define 'exact copies'

 

[editec]

Does anybody here really think science is or has ever been isolated from politics and philosophy?

Not since science became something that actually mattered, no.

Right now there's a very definite political/philosophical bias against human cloning.

True

Is that a bad thing?

Yes

Is that a good thing?

yes

Either way, it influences science.

Yes it does.

How about the question of differences in mean aptitudes among racial groups?

Okay, how about them?

Does anybody really believe that philosophy doesn't influence science in that area?

I believe that some philosophies influence the way that the findings of such studies are recieved, for sure.

Do you really believe that, in today's society, someone who postulates that there is an innate difference in mean aptitude between what we call "racial groups" based on genetics is going to get a "fair" hearing in the realm of "science?"

Yeah, actually I do. In the realm of science they'll get a fair hearing.

In the court of public opinion, no they won't.

How about environmental issues? Do you honestly believe someone who expresses a view contrary to the "environmentalist" point of view receives a "fair" hearing?

Yes, actually I do.

There's PLENTY of wriggle-room in the science of climatology which gives honest players from BOTH SIDES valid reasons to disagree with each other.

Both sides are operating with less than perfect data.

Both sides are creating models based on assumptions which are highly speculative, too.

Given that, it doesn't surprise me one bit that there exists very different scientific opinions about the climate.

It's not about political correctness (at least scientifically) it's about presuppositions and scientific wild assed guesses.

It's really about scientists trying to impose their opinion about an ORDER on what is truly a chaotic system.

 

[midcan5]

Not isolated but separate or ascendant, consider the influence of religion on philosophy and science for so long. Religion had the answers, explain germs to a person in the middle ages. And religion through politics is at the core of many dilemmas today.

At one time, philosophy thought it understood the world and progress was inevitable.

Science presumably considers itself a method but given the areas it touches - moral neutrality is hard when conception alone is considered life.

The core philosophical imagination, as Grayling writes is about two items today: 'the idea of meaning or value in the universe, and the idea that reality has an ultimate nature.'
Philosophy would seem to say taking care of the earth is important as we all inhabit this place and depend on it. But first we must live and be healthy, or any succeeding question is irrelevant.

Your other example gets into racism and is taboo in a society that claims Gawd created all women equal. Given we can't all be brain surgeons or particle physicists, intelligence measurements have little relevance for most. Can you do the work, are you articulate enough, do you have commonsense, are your values honest, are you emphatic, do you honor your agreements, can you work with others, can you accept rules, can you read and compute at a level necessary for your McDonald's or Walmart job making minimum wage and no benefits. Sorry, joking a bit here, but anyone who has worked as long as I have in corporate America, with a variety of people from brilliant to stupid knows a test score means nada.



"It is not enough to ask, ‘Will my act harm other people?’ Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, ‘Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people?’ The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit

 

[KittenKoder]

it's when they try to make exact copies of other beings that I don't like it

Why? and please define 'exact copies'

A few (not many thankfully) are actually seeking to make exact copies, not just more cells but to duplicate the life form they are cloning. I only have a problem because ... I hate exact copies. I like flavor, I like color, I like variance. If everyone looked, acted, and thought the same I wouldn't bother living anymore.

 

[JBeukema]

[
A few (not many thankfully) are actually seeking to make exact copies, not just more cells but to duplicate the life form they are cloning. I only have a problem because ... I hate exact copies. I like flavor, I like color, I like variance. If everyone looked, acted, and thought the same I wouldn't bother living anymore.

1) so, it's 'dislike' but non'find morally unacceptable'?

2) Same DNA =/= same mind

 

[KittenKoder]

[
A few (not many thankfully) are actually seeking to make exact copies, not just more cells but to duplicate the life form they are cloning. I only have a problem because ... I hate exact copies. I like flavor, I like color, I like variance. If everyone looked, acted, and thought the same I wouldn't bother living anymore.

1) so, it's 'dislike' but non'find morally unacceptable'?

2) Same DNA =/= same mind

As I said, EXACT copies, not just the same DNA. Also, no, the problem I have is it would be wiping out the one thing that makes humans human, the differences, the uniqueness, the color. I'm being selfish, because I don't want to see the same person all the time. It's bad enough I have to deal with people in real life at all, if they all looked the same, talked the same, and thought the same, it would drive me insane. As it is, too many people want to be like everyone else.

 

[JBeukema]

So, KK only objects to the impossible? :LOL:

 

[Diuretic]

Does anybody here really think science is or has ever been isolated from politics and philosophy?

Right now there's a very definite political/philosophical bias against human cloning. Is that a bad thing? Is that a good thing? Either way, it influences science.

How about the question of differences in mean aptitudes among racial groups? Does anybody really believe that philosophy doesn't influence science in that area? Do you really believe that, in today's society, someone who postulates that there is an innate difference in mean aptitude between what we call "racial groups" based on genetics is going to get a "fair" hearing in the realm of "science?"

How about environmental issues? Do you honestly believe someone who expresses a view contrary to the "environmentalist" point of view receives a "fair" hearing?

Do you mean "philosophy"? Or is it just a useful word to encompass things you don't like?

Human cloning may be entirely possible (scientifically) but is it desirable (philosophically)? And how would it be managed (politically)?


Does it upset you when someone brings up the very real issue of cultural bias in IQ tests?

Are you distraught because the "other side" in the "environmental debate" seems to have captured public opinion?

Do you think that science should be isolated from philosophy or politics? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[editec]

As long as the pulic is PAYING for science, or as long as the outcome of SCIENTIFIC advances effects the public, it is perfectly reasonable that science answers to society.

Society has the right to protect itself, folks.

Science can so dramatically fuck things up, that expecting society NOT to get involved is completely assinine.