You could’ve said “science is unethical by nature”, or “science is, by nature, unethical”, with commas. Those would be well formulated sentences, which would be easier to read and make sense of.
About the questions: do you oppose all ethical guidelines in science? Are there any you’re fond of? Or should science be completely unimpeded, regardless of who it damages, or what purpose it serves? Can you give any examples?
You could’ve said “science is unethical by nature”, or “science is, by nature, unethical”, with commas. Those would be well formulated sentences, which would be easier to read and make sense of.
You understood exactly what I meant.
About the questions: do you oppose all ethical guidelines in science? Are there any you’re fond of? Or should science be completely unimpeded, regardless of who it damages, or what purpose it serves? Can you give any examples?
I don’t oppose ethical guidelines because they are required to keep Scientific Study in check. I never stated that Science did not need ethical frameworks, I said they are detrimental to Scientific Study. Ethical frameworks hold back Study because of the damage it can do. That doesn’t mean progress is not slowed because of those safe guards.
If Scientific study is ethical, why do we require ethical frame works to keep Scientific study from being unethical?
As I said, very questionable.
It is only questionable because of the numerous assumptions you made about me as a person, followed by engaging me in bad faith because of those assumptions.
Yes, I understood exactly what you said because, as I said before, it’s not hard to understand, it’s just badly formulated.
Natural science is amoral, a jaguar doesn’t care that a gazelle is pregnant when hunting it, since neither of them know what morality is. Scientific research is not naturally moral or immoral, it’s instance dependant. You wouldn’t call Volta immoral for stacking zinc and copper to make a battery, and you wouldn’t think twice before calling Unit 731 immoral.
You don’t get to make a normative claim, wrap it in a false equivalence between human constructs, like scientific research and morality, and the moral independency of natural science, word it inches away from historical fascist research ideals, and then complain when people fill in the blanks in the most plausible way. If you wanted a real discussion, you could’ve developed, from the start, on what you mean, and worded it better. But you didn’t, you’re just rage baiting.
This is shower thoughts and you are responsible for your own “rage” you feel I “baited” because you are too ignorant to entertain any idea you don’t understand. Which is the problem, you don’t understand and you are mad about it so you shoot the messenger.
Ignorant humans sure like to hide behind emotional response instead of using logical thought.
What about my statement is badly formulated? If it is questionable, where are your questions?
You could’ve said “science is unethical by nature”, or “science is, by nature, unethical”, with commas. Those would be well formulated sentences, which would be easier to read and make sense of.
About the questions: do you oppose all ethical guidelines in science? Are there any you’re fond of? Or should science be completely unimpeded, regardless of who it damages, or what purpose it serves? Can you give any examples?
As I said, very questionable.
You understood exactly what I meant.
I don’t oppose ethical guidelines because they are required to keep Scientific Study in check. I never stated that Science did not need ethical frameworks, I said they are detrimental to Scientific Study. Ethical frameworks hold back Study because of the damage it can do. That doesn’t mean progress is not slowed because of those safe guards.
If Scientific study is ethical, why do we require ethical frame works to keep Scientific study from being unethical?
It is only questionable because of the numerous assumptions you made about me as a person, followed by engaging me in bad faith because of those assumptions.
Yes, I understood exactly what you said because, as I said before, it’s not hard to understand, it’s just badly formulated.
Natural science is amoral, a jaguar doesn’t care that a gazelle is pregnant when hunting it, since neither of them know what morality is. Scientific research is not naturally moral or immoral, it’s instance dependant. You wouldn’t call Volta immoral for stacking zinc and copper to make a battery, and you wouldn’t think twice before calling Unit 731 immoral.
You don’t get to make a normative claim, wrap it in a false equivalence between human constructs, like scientific research and morality, and the moral independency of natural science, word it inches away from historical fascist research ideals, and then complain when people fill in the blanks in the most plausible way. If you wanted a real discussion, you could’ve developed, from the start, on what you mean, and worded it better. But you didn’t, you’re just rage baiting.
This is shower thoughts and you are responsible for your own “rage” you feel I “baited” because you are too ignorant to entertain any idea you don’t understand. Which is the problem, you don’t understand and you are mad about it so you shoot the messenger.
Ignorant humans sure like to hide behind emotional response instead of using logical thought.