[void *]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Ok, that was funny.

Honestly - I didn't get it, it made no sense to me at all that he'd respond with "too soon". *shrug*.

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by janice6

One person's thoughts that are in disagreement with the thoughts of a second person, are always considered harmful by the first person.

You're a 'nihilist?

[void *]

Originally Posted by Roering

Or rather should we pass laws based upon our scientific communities findings such as global warming?

From the scientific standpoint, we should try to figure out what's actually going on (i.e. we should let the actual science being done, still get done). From a religious standpoint, people should be free to believe what they want inasmuch as they are not harming other people (i.e., "my religion believes murder is ok" doesn't legally get you off the hook for murder, etc).

From a legal standpoint, it's my opinion we pass too many law for all *sorts* of bad reasons. Someone intentionally fudging a scientific finding would be one of them. However, I think that the opposition to global warming is borne more out of economics than it actually being bad science (although I don't think we should be, at the moment, necessarily be passing laws even under the assumption that it is *good* science.).

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by void *

Honestly - I didn't get it, it made no sense to me at all that he'd respond with "too soon". *shrug*.

When someone makes a joke about a very dark event (in this case Russia invading Poland) and someone takes offense because they don't feel it's a joking matter (which is not really what you did, but...) then the come back is "too soon" which expanded equals "Too soon to joke about the tragic event?"

Take Roering with a grain of salt. It's been my experience that at least half the time he is just joking around (but you were still right on the unequal comparison call).

[janice6]

Originally Posted by muscogee

You're a 'nihilist?

No. I'm simply saying that to get two people to agree on anything is difficult because they both think they are right.

Good luck.

[void *]

Originally Posted by Geko45

When someone makes a joke about a very dark event (in this case Russia invading Poland)

Eh, I guess that's why I didn't get it, because it didn't look at all like a joke to me, it looked like the standard "I don't really have a response so I will associate with hitler/stalin/the north koreans/etc even though that's really just using a well known fallacy' that various different people here in the forums apply.

[Roering]

Originally Posted by void *

Have you really missed the whole 'We have to teach intelligent design' debate? Really? You missed the law they just passed in Tennessee? The court case in Pennsylvania? (which, imho, came out the right way, but it certainly points out that people are still trying)

Honestly, I think you think that because I brought up Galileo, you have to jump in and knock me down. This isn't about the Catholic church, it's about learning the lessons of history.

Was the law to teach intelligent design instead of evolution or in addition to evolution? If it is in addition than this really isn't an example of your statement is it?

Void I make no attempt to knock you down. I have no problem with you bringing up Galileo as it is a valid point to your assertion.

As far as learning lessons about history goes I can think of plenty of generally accepted scientific theories that have been found later to be wrong. I can also point to religious organizations trying to reign in scientific theories and research for good and bad reasons.

However, it is my conclusion that humanity at times needs to be kept in check and the religious community plays a part in that. If we were allowed to treat human life as nothing more than lab rats we could make a lot of discoveries I'm sure but at some point people would hopefully stop to ask if it the right thing to do?

Example: Is it OK to keep a woman's legs tied together while in the act of giving birth to see what will happen to both mother and child for the sake of science?

This was an actual experiment Void. And if the scientific community is not going to speak out against it I would hope that the Church, Politicians, or some body of authority would.

In doing so you may think that this "harms" or "hinders" scientific advancement but I am willing to take that risk.

We live in a time where science has come to a point where we can do things with and to human beings that perhaps should not be done. It is fantastic, fascinating, and at the same time frightening. I think that we should not just do things because we think we can. Our ability to alter our very own DNA can cure an identified problem yet cause numerous unidentified problems. Patience can be so important at times like this. Unfortunately that means having to actually stop and do things slower than we can otherwise do.

Science itself does not stop to ask moral questions. I believe such questions need to be asked though. Such moral issues that arise need to be debated. Even if that is a hinderance.

[void *]

Originally Posted by Roering

Was the law to teach intelligent design instead of evolution or in addition to evolution? If it is in addition than this really isn't an example of your statement is it?

Are you ok with something that is not actually science, in the sense that it is unfalsifiable, being taught as science, which actually calls for falsifiability? That's the problem I have. I actually have no problem with intelligent design being taught in appropriate contexts.

As far as learning lessons about history goes I can think of plenty of generally accepted scientific theories that have been found later to be wrong.

Sure. The scientific method itself handles this, when properly applied. It is actually *expected* that 'generally accepted scientific theories' will sometimes be wrong. See Newton and Einstein, for instance. If, in the future, someone comes up with something that deals with the issue of unifying QM and Relativity, and what they come up with requires throwing both QM and Relativity out, and the new thing (whatever it is) explains what QM and Relativity don't, and has the same or better predictive power - then we throw out QM and relativity. That's how science works.

That doesn't mean we teach "The electric universe" alongside QM and Relativity. Grok?

However, it is my conclusion that humanity at times needs to be kept in check and the religious community plays a part in that. If we were allowed to treat human life as nothing more than lab rats we could make a lot of discoveries I'm sure but at some point people would hopefully stop to ask if it the right thing to do?

I don't think religion is the only or even a *necessary* component of stopping to ask "is this the right thing to do?".

[Roering]

Originally Posted by void *

Are you ok with something that is not actually science, in the sense that it is unfalsifiable, being taught as science, which actually calls for falsifiability? That's the problem I have. I actually have no problem with intelligent design being taught in appropriate contexts.



Sure. The scientific method itself handles this, when properly applied. It is actually *expected* that 'generally accepted scientific theories' will sometimes be wrong. See Newton and Einstein, for instance. If, in the future, someone comes up with something that deals with the issue of unifying QM and Relativity, and what they come up with requires throwing both QM and Relativity out, and the new thing (whatever it is) explains what QM and Relativity don't, and has the same or better predictive power - then we throw out QM and relativity. That's how science works.

That doesn't mean we teach ""The electric universe"* alongside QM and Relativity. Grok?



I don't think religion is the only or even a *necessary* component of stopping to ask "is this the right thing to do?".

Has there been an addition to the scientific method that includes stopping to consider if testing or outcome of a hypothesis is morally right?

[void *]

Originally Posted by Roering

Has there been an addition to the scientific method that includes stopping to consider if testing or outcome of a hypothesis is morally right?

The scientific method itself does not say 'do not test this if testing it is immoral' - it can't, because it doesn't talk about morality - but there are in fact certain experiments or means of experimentation that are considered unethical, and there are papers, etc on how to conduct ethical experimentation. It's not like *all* scientists are out there going 'we can do whatever we want!'. (That is not intended to imply that there *haven't* been scientists who performed unethical experiments. We're talking about humans here).

[Roering]

Originally Posted by void *

The scientific method itself does not say 'do not test this if testing it is immoral' - it can't, because it doesn't talk about morality - but there are in fact certain experiments or means of experimentation that are considered unethical, and there are papers, etc on how to conduct ethical experimentation. It's not like *all* scientists are out there going 'we can do whatever we want!'. (That is not intended to imply that there *haven't* been scientists who performed unethical experiments. We're talking about humans here).

So do these papers then prohibit or admonish said experiments due to being unethical? Is there an advisory board of some form within the scientific community that prohibits certain experiments from happening? Or a Hypothesis from being tested?

[void *]

Originally Posted by Roering

So do these papers then prohibit or admonish said experiments due to being unethical? Is there an advisory board of some form within the scientific community that prohibits certain experiments from happening? Or a Hypothesis from being tested?

Well, there are various organizations that print guidelines and the like, there are laws, etc.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by void *

it looked like the standard "I don't really have a response so I will associate with hitler/stalin/the north koreans/etc even though that's really just using a well known fallacy' that various different people here in the forums apply.

Oh, that is exactly what that part was.

[Roering]

Originally Posted by void *

Well, there are various organizations that print guidelines and the like, there are laws, etc.

So it is really "religion, laws,various organizations, and the scientific community that harms scientific progress". Not just religion.

[void *]

Originally Posted by Roering

So it is really "religion, laws,various organizations, and the scientific community that harms scientific progress". Not just religion.

Do you really think not performing an unethical experiment is the same thing as not exploring a particular area of scientific research because what it is finding contradicts particular religious beliefs?

[Roering]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Imagine how much further we would be as a society if that amount of brain power were being devoted to understanding the physical world as opposed to worshipping an imaginary deity. How many discoveries have never happened simply because the right person was regurgitating hymns in church as opposed to investigating real world problems?

Sounds like the beginnings of Aldous Huxley's novel.

[void *]

Originally Posted by Roering

Sounds like the beginnings of Aldous Huxley's novel.

Actually, no, in Brave New World the population was brainwashed and drugged, not encouraged to do science.

Edit: in fact they had various close-to-religious customs that were part of the brainwashing.

[Roering]

Originally Posted by void *

Do you really think not performing an unethical experiment is the same thing as not exploring a particular area of scientific research because what it is finding contradicts particular religious beliefs?

Scientific research includes experimentation and testing. To deny experimentation and testing harms scientific research which harms scientific progress. And you and I have already shown that various organizations do that. Including the scientific community as you have pointed out.

[void *]

Originally Posted by Roering

Scientific research includes experimentation and testing.

Yep.

To deny experimentation and testing harms scientific research which harms scientific progress.

You presume that a particular experiment which is unethical is the only way to find out what that experiment could find out. In some cases this may be true, but it is *not* true in *all* cases, and it is certainly *less* harmful than saying "you can't examine that at all*.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Roering

Sounds like the beginnings of Aldous Huxley's novel.

Oh no you didn't! It's on cuz!

[Roering]

Originally Posted by void *

You presume that a particular experiment which is unethical is the only way to find out what that experiment could find out. In some cases this may be true, but it is *not* true in *all* cases, and it is certainly *less* harmful than saying "you can't examine that at all*.

To say that it is *less* harmful is to still imply that it is harmful. In the same way that skydiving with a backup parachute is less dangerous but nevertheless still dangerous.

Which was my point that you seem to keep trying to argue against.

Look Void. You have obviously lost this round. You can either admit it with a...

"Yeah, I guess there are lots of organizations that harm scientific progress including it's own community"

Or go with

"Stupid religious zealot, what the hell do you know about science, you still think the planet is only 4,000 years old"

Or slightly change the subject and try to regroup a different point from there.

I'll only respect you for choosing the first though. Unfortunately many atheists take the second, and the prideful go with the third.

[Roering]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Oh no you didn't! It's on cuz!

Would Gattaca have been better?

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Roering

Would Gattaca have been better?

I'd have preferred Atlas Shrugged.

[void *]

Originally Posted by Roering

To say that it is *less* harmful is to still imply that it is harmful. In the same way that skydiving with a backup parachute is less dangerous but nevertheless still dangerous.

It is actually "less harmful" enough that I consider even making the comparison completely ridiculous.

Kind of like complaining that since accidentally stepping on a nail attaching your carpet to the floor draws blood and someone stabbing you in the face until you die draws blood, they are equally harmful to a person and we should treat carpet nails as mass murderers.

See, Roering, there's a difference between saying "You can't study that because we disagree with what you've found" and "We don't want that experiment performed because it harms people". If you can't recognize that, then hey, that's on you, and I'll still be over here when you figure out that presenting a false trichotomy doesn't mean you win.

[Roering]

Originally Posted by Geko45

I'd have preferred Atlas Shrugged.

I don't think I've read any of her work. I think my son has that book though. Any good?