yoda Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I guess we should have waited for EVERYONE in the world to have first understood how to use a DOS machine before ever venturing into something called Windows. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I guess we should have waited for EVERYONE in the world to have first understood how to use a DOS machine before ever venturing into something called Windows. :D Who said everyone ? And what is the negetive consequence to human society if they fail to understand DOS ? Sorry but i think science education in India would make a lot more sense if they included a course or two in ethics. Which is clearly lacking from the curriculum, hence such irresponsible responses here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Who said everyone ? And what is the negetive consequence to human society if they fail to understand DOS ? Sorry but i think science education in India would make a lot more sense if they included a course or two in ethics. Which is clearly lacking from the curriculum, hence such irresponsible responses here. Computers themselves were considered evil by many cause they were replacing lots of bank clerks. How did we know that as a society we were ready for people to give up those jobs for the sake of better customer service? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I have no intention of getting into a long argument here but just want to say that escapism goes nowhere. Find the truth, see the truth, accept the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 How did we know that as a society we were ready for people to give up those jobs for the sake of better customer service? Giving us jobs and giving rise to fundamental discrimination within man are two completely different things and one is pure quantified evil while the other is a thing that has happened throughout human history as technology as improved. I will leave you to figure out whcih is what. Computers themselves were considered evil by many cause they were replacing lots of bank clerks. This is no conversation for hyperboles, sorry to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 There does not have to be any fundamental discrimination even if such a gene is found. May be society will be more tolerant towards a race and help them succeed and give them the right tools if they know that there is a genetic component to their intelligence and behavior. May be we will come up with a cure for it via gene therapy and help them instead of living in a state of denial (if indeed that there was a gene like that). Like shwetabh says truth must be found. There is no sense in hiding behind the curtains of ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Find the truth, see the truth, accept the truth. That works great as a personal mantra and at a personal level. But what about truth that society cannot handle as of this point in its evolution ? Does societerial evolution have any meaning to you or are you the irresponsible mad scientist who just discovers $hit and throws it society's way, with not one iota of idea and concern on whether society will use your own invention/discovery to blow itself up or better itself ? Like i said, i find your viewpoint to be categorically against each and every ethics course taught in university when dealing with science. It goes against the very fabric of moral scientific perspective. You can't just throw out 'truths' there and shrug off responsibility of what society does with your findings. If society is not ready to find the truth and accept the truth at point X, it makes zero logic and zero ethical sense to throw out the truth in midst anyways and shrug off responsibility like a fatalist. Your discovery serves a wrong purpose and it is irresponsible. That much, is indisputable. And please tell me how/why humanity is ready for research in this sensetive topic and what exactly is the harm in saying 'lets revisit THIS topic in a couple of hundred years' ? Is your lust for knowledge a greater priority to you than the consequences of your actions on mankind ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Society evolves through truths rather than lies pander to society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 May be society will be more tolerant towards a race and help them succeed and give them the right tools if they know that there is a genetic component to their intelligence and behavior. Your answer proves vividly why such research must be opposed ( and FYI, IS opposed in the scientific community- look around and see how this fellow's suggested line of thought has been recieved by scientific bodies and just how many are in favour of sanctioning such research). For already you are drawing the wrong conclusions based on genetic contribution to intelligence. Like shwetabh says truth must be found. There is no sense in hiding behind the curtains of ignorance. Nobody said that truth must not be found. Nobody said that we should never walk down this path. But at the same time, TRUTH MUST BE FOUND WHEN SOCIETY IS READY FOR SUCH TRUTH. your 'truth must be found' dogma is going clearly against society- and that is not acceptable. Simple as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Like i said, i find your viewpoint to be categorically against each and every ethics course taught in university when dealing with science. It goes against the very fabric of moral scientific perspective. Are you serious when making that statement? Not to brag or anything, but I have studied scientific ethics at one of the best universities in the world taught by a Nobel prize winner and the bottom line was the truth has to be revealed no matter what, the challenges facing science are how to reveal the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Society evolves through truths rather than lies pander to society. Society sometimes also nukes itself on 'truths' its not ready to handle. See the example i gave for paper money. I am not sure exactly on the date ( either 500 BC or 500 AD, not sure) but the rest of the facts are correct. Society does not evolve through truth when it is not ready to handle such truth- it devolves and we get chaos. All because people like you put your own lust for 'truth' above the requirement of 'timing' it properly. Again, as i said, please show me what exactly is the drawback of saying 'lets revisit this topic in 300 yrs from now when humanity is ready to deal with it', when it is clear that at this point in time, research on this topic harms mankind more than it helps it and the research topic is not critical to the fundamental discussion anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I have studied scientific ethics at one of the best universities in the world taught by a Nobel prize winner and the bottom line was the truth has to be revealed no matter what, the challenges facing science are how to reveal the truth.Your instructor was either ill-qualified to talk on this topic ( nobel prize winner doesnt mean his/her ethics are in order- lots of scientists are positively ghastly when it coomes to ethics and for this , i don't need your opinion. I know the whole labrat and lab-apes saga personally from observation at ground zero) or you didn't pay much attention in your course. The bottomline to scientific ethic is not 'nomatter what, the truth has to be revealed'. The bottomline is ' nomatter what, truth must be revealed when mankind is ready for such truths'. A big part of the 'how' to reveal the truth also involves the concept of 'timing' and 'when to reveal the truth'. sadly, science in general is missing that, which is why science is a fairly depressing subject when it comes to ethics. Pretty much because science is essentially ruled by power-hungry 'glory hunters', who all want to be known as father of X, discoverer of Y, maker of Z. The fame and the money behind such fame is the reason so many of the so-called science folks are utterly devoid of ethics and just don't give two $hits about what impact their work has on society. And i notice from your pointed aversion to my question, you really are not arguing from an ethical standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Your instructor was either ill-qualified to talk on this topic ( nobel prize winner doesnt mean his/her ethics are in order- lots of scientists are positively ghastly when it coomes to ethics and for this , i don't need your opinion. I know the whole labrat and lab-apes saga personally from observation at ground zero) or you didn't pay much attention in your course. The bottomline to scientific ethic is not 'nomatter what, the truth has to be revealed'. The bottomline is ' nomatter what, truth must be revealed when mankind is ready for such truths'. And i notice from your pointed aversion to my question, you really are not arguing from an ethical standpoint. I'll quote again, because it's obvious that you missed the entire sentence since you quoted only half of it, the bottom line was the truth has to be revealed no matter what, the challenges facing science are how to reveal the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 PS : Your solution deals with delaying the revealing the truth, the real challenges facing science are to find solutions to reveal the truth today if they know it without causing harm to the society. Procrastination is not a solution but cowardice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 And just a FYI, top universities try to get the best instructors for particular courses and I concluded my studies with a 3.97 GPA for the points about someone not being qualified to teach something or me not having paid attention to my classes And the bottomline is, regardless of your degree, gpa and education, you are arguing from a standpoint that is not ethical and neither is your concept an ethical one. Don't brag universities and degrees with me- i happen to be taught in one of the best in Canada, also by professors sporting qualifications that will make your eyes goggle. And lets not go down this road anyways- i have seen from personal experience that this serves no one and neither the argument. Soon we will have people show up with absurd claims (like they've done before), talking about sporting half a dozen university undergrad degrees and being a PhD in cricket too. If you think you are taught by the most ethical teacher in the world in the most ethical institute in the world, then you surely can handle answering my question. I have to go but i hope by the time i get back later in the night, you'd have answered my question that shows your ethical education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Procrastination is not a solution but cowardice.False bravado has gotten many killed and societies destroyed- learn to check your ego instead of inflaming it. And waiting for the proper time is not procrastination, its prudent, logical and ethical. Please stop providing meaningless soundbytes and tell me what is the drawback of holding back the truth for a later time in human history if its gonna screw over society today. the real challenges facing science are to find solutions to reveal the truth today if they know it without causing harm to the societyCorrect but you only get part marks for getting it partially correct. If great harm is a certainty today and/or harm outweighs help by many orders of magnitude, then the logical and ethical perspective is to say 'lets revisit this at a time when society is ready for it'.Anyways. Gotta go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 If you think you are taught by the most ethical teacher in the world in the most ethical institute in the world, then you surely can handle answering my question. What question? Don't brag universities and degrees with me- You brought up the scientific ethics education of posters here. As for eyes goggle, it'll take a lot before that happens. Anyways, I'll edit out my posts "bragging" about the claims since you are right about them serving no purpose on an online forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 what is the drawback of holding back the truth for a later time in human history if its gonna screw over society today. I'm guessing that is the "question" you were referring to. Revelation of the truth must be prudent but it does not involve procrastination. It involves developing a conducive environment to reveal the truth. Just sitting back and waiting for the society to evolve to handle the truth is escapism and working to develop a structure where the revelation of the truth will not harm the society is what true scientific ethics are all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 I'm guessing that is the "question" you were referring to. Revelation of the truth must be prudent but it does not involve procrastination. It involves developing a conducive environment to reveal the truth. Just sitting back and waiting for the society to evolve to handle the truth is escapism and working to develop a structure where the revelation of the truth will not harm the society is what true scientific ethics are all about. You just vindicated my argument. Thank you! I never said sit around your ar$e and procrastinate- i clearly said that if the world is not ready, you develop a conductive environment to reveal the truth. However, one day you will realize that some truths require many lifetime's work to make the situation conductive for it and when it comes to any topic that leads to blanket discrimination, we are atleast a few hundred years away from reaching such a stage. Thus i said, this is a topic that needs to be revisited in a couple of hundred years, not now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 I never said sit around your ar and procrastinate- i clearly said that if the world is not ready, you develop a conductive environment to reveal the truth. However, one day you will realize that some truths require many lifetime's work to make the situation conductive for it and when it comes to any topic that leads to blanket discrimination, we are atleast a few hundred years away from reaching such a stage. Thus i said, this is a topic that needs to be revisited in a couple of hundred years, not now. How do you know? Have you done any meaningful research on the topic to say whether the world is ready or not? Have you, in this thread, brought about any constructive argument about making the world ready instead of procrastinating? What is the scientific basis of your claim of a few hundred years and what is you action plan for those few hundred years which will make the society ready for such research and results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts