Comment on Ethical frameworks are detrimental to Scientific Study because Science is by nature unethical.

Brkdncr@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• Arkouda@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Is the sentence hard to understand?

  source

  • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    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. When science is a system of understanding nature.

    And without ethics in science, we get nightmare bastardization of science.

    source

    • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      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.

      source
    • JASN_DE@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      That doesn’t mean his post is false though.

      source

      • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        It absolutely proves his post false.

        source
    • Arkouda@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • starlinguk@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Bring back vivisection! (you volunteering?)

        You don’t seem to know what ethical means.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I think you need to understand the history of science before you debate this argument, you are basically mixing metaphors

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Brkdncr@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    You just lumped all of “science” together. Even the science of documenting birdsong?

    source

    • Arkouda@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • Brkdncr@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        No thanks, this is too shallow of a shower thought.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • maxwells_daemon@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    It’s not hard to understand, despite being badly formulated, it’s just very questionable.

    source

    • Arkouda@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      What about my statement is badly formulated? If it is questionable, where are your questions?

      source

      • maxwells_daemon@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments