And scientific study is unethical… How?
My brother, how many examples do you need? Without mentioning the 30s and 40s, look at the Tuskegee Experiment where men were given syphilis intentionally and withheld treatment to study it’s spread in black populations. Or the San Francisco Operation Sea-Spray when dangerous bacterial were sprayed over the entire city to study it’s effects on the population. Ethical frameworks exist to prevent people from harming others in the pursuit of data, because if they aren’t prevented they will. I order to prevent this harm from being done, a clearly defined set of principles must be stated and written down so that everyone involved can have the same understanding when designing and approving studies.
Yes. Those are examples of science being done unethically. Science itself is a process that is ethically neutral so it can be used in both good and bad ways. That doesn’t make it unethical by nature like the original post claims it is.
We are on the same page.
Scientific study is by nature unethical because one must do unethical things in it’s pursuit. We have ethical frameworks around Scientific Study for a reason, and it isn’t because it was doing fine without those frameworks.
Ah yes, everyone knows how famously unethical astronomers are, they should respect the privacy and consent of supernovas. Filthy perverts peeping on those innocent stars!
You should find something better to do than being a troll.
As soon as someone comes up with a clear-cut example of science that you can’t pervert, you call them a troll and move on. Typical of a sealion who claims they want to discuss but actually just wants to beat someone with their opinion, just like in your other thread where you try and cram religion into morality.
Idiots do nothing but come up with exceptions for other idiots to clap at.
Exceptions disprove your blanket statement.
My “blanket statement” was a “shower thought” you absolute fucking genius. lol
“I’m not wrong; you’re a troll!”
fucking lmao- actual ad homenim and not just an insult? You rarely see it.
Funny, I was going to say the same to you
Why do you think that asking questions, making a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis and writing down the results is unethical?
Why do you think the context of the testing doesn’t matter?
You said “science”, not any specific type or category of study, so if you mean a specific school of science is unethical you should make that distinction.
Yes, because context matters. Exceptions don’t make the rule, and speaking generally about things is allowed when they are related.
If you want to get into the semantics feel free. My statement is broad because it is a “shower thought”.
This isn’t debate club.
This isn’t debate club.
If people aren’t suppose to discuss and possibly disagree, why post? What do you think is the purpose of the showerthoughts community?
If people aren’t suppose to discuss and possibly disagree, why post?
I am open to discussion and disagreement. Look around the thread and tell me how many opening comments you see promoting discussion or civil disagreement.
What do you think is the purpose of the showerthoughts community?
To share “Shower thoughts”.
Crazy concept I know.
I see a bunch of people posting civil and reasonable issues with the thinking behind your shower thought, and then you replying in an immature and disingenuous manner. I think the contrasting upvotes / downvotes in your comments vs everyone elses suggests that my interpretation is shared by the wider community.
I almost didn’t comment because I thought from your behaviour it was obvious trolling, and there’s no point reasoning with trolls. But looking through your post history, you seem like you’re generally posting on good faith, so I thought I’d try and explain that you do not need to react so defensively to legitamate discussion and disagreement.
A shower thought doesn’t need to be factually correct to be interesting, but when you post a pretty extreme take on a serious and sensitive subject, it isn’t surprising that people are going to clarify where you’ve gone wrong.
This isn’t a serious or sensitive topic, and I engaged people as they engaged me. If you actually looked at the thread you would see me engage like a jerk when people engaged me in bad faith, and engaged in good faith conversation with those who engaged in good faith.
Go police someone else. I never asked for your opinion.
Yes, because context matters. Exceptions don’t make the rule, and speaking generally about things is allowed when they are related.
So what is the exception here? You said, and I quote, “science is by nature unethical”. So you’re saying any experimental methodology in any school of science exploring any number of completely benign things is somehow unethical.
This isn’t debate club.
I see you’re new to the internet.
Yes. Poking and prodding everything with no mind for repercussion is unethical, and that is where “Science” is rooted.
Now jog on.
Wut
Is the sentence hard to understand?
its just hard to understand how something so stupid can be said
The Wiki page defines ETHICS as
Ethics is the philosophical study of moral phenomena. Also called moral philosophy, it investigates normative questions about what people ought to do or which behavior is morally right.
What you are doing is anthropomorphizing science. Science is a method system for understanding nature.
And without ethics in science, we get nightmare bastardization of science.
its just hard to understand how something so stupid can be said
It’s especially funny when you read OP’s profile bio:
Nowadays everybody wants to talk like they got something to say but nothing comes out when they move their lips just a bunch of gibberish.
That doesn’t mean his post is false though.
It absolutely proves his post false.
Without ethics in Science we have a detailed understanding of our anatomy, the ability to transplant organs, numerous life saving medications, space travel, understanding of the human mind, etc.
Fact of the matter is when “ethics” are imposed on Scientific study, Scientific study is hindered, so Scientific study cannot be ethical if it is to be successful.
Bring back vivisection! (you volunteering?)
You don’t seem to know what ethical means.
I know what ethical means. Do you know what asinine means?
This post is asinine.
Glad my post found some common ground with your existence.
I think you need to understand the history of science before you debate this argument, you are basically mixing metaphors
I understand the history of Science which is why I made my OP.
I don’t believe you. And I am done with this debate. You have shown a very good lack of understanding in this brief encounter.
Here is some reading materials for you OP
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11060189/
You only need to read the summery to see why your showerthought is wrong
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis
This has a very comprehensive list of why ethical frameworks are ESSENTIAL to the scientific process
its just hard to understand how something so stupid can be said
I don’t care what you believe because you have demonstrated 0 good faith since start.
You can go away now.
That’s rough, buddy
You just lumped all of “science” together. Even the science of documenting birdsong?
Can you tell me what goes in to the Science of birdsong? I am unfamiliar with the field and expect you to be able to give me a detailed response on what goes in to it as it is your example.
No thanks, this is too shallow of a shower thought.
No thanks, this is too shallow of a shower thought.
Why bother engaging in the first place if you won’t follow up?
It’s not hard to understand, despite being badly formulated, it’s just very questionable.
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 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.
this is like the shit i would say when i was 12, i am assuming the same about you
When you assume you make an ass out of you and me.
Found the psychopathic scientist!
Don’t excuse a Nazi with mental disorders. Who do you think a person like this would choose to be unethical with? his parents? No probably the people he hates.
This is incredibly ignorant, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Says the guy who thinks Mengele had a point.
I never said that. You have a reach like Mr. Tickle.
I don’t think you know enough about history then love. You said exactly that. It’s not a problem to make a mistake but you either say sorry or stand by what you said, don’t just come with this “thats not what I said” shit
I don’t think you know enough about anything to be speaking to me sweetums, and I won’t apologize for you being a psycho.
You’re kinda a moron, aren’t you? :( Please, stay off the internet for now. You’re shitting the place up, but also, you’re probably deeply confused. You’re clearly learning to parrot words and ideas back at people, so thats progress! Parroting is a precursor to understanding language more properly, so keep at it!
Have you ever asked a Scientist how they feel about the impacts of ethical frameworks on their study?
This is some Josef Mengele type of shit. Hope you like the tropical sun
To the pure science itself yes, but not to the larger environment resp. individuals. That’s why there are usually checks in place.
How can we have a proper double blind study if we are forced to tell the participants information that could impact the results of the study in order to gain informed consent?
That does not invalidate a double-blind study.
While I agree it does not invalidate the study because it is one of the gold standards, it is disingenuous to say that the information provided to gain informed consent in a double blind study has no impact on that study.
You seem to think that a double blind study is to measure the effect of a medication against “no medication”, but it is, in fact, to measure effect against placebo. Double blind is specifically designed to remove experimentator effect in a full consent framework. In fact, the study that are not done with consent, generally in a single blind (the experimentated) are always frowned upon by the community for good reasons.
You are missing the point and I won’t restate what was already stated explicitly.
“you’re wrong”
“no?”
“well you’re right but this new claim”
“here’s why you’re wrong in detail”
“you aren’t engaging with me. The time for conversation has passed. goodbye.”
Fuck off
