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

• thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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 ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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 ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    That doesn’t mean his post is false though.

    source

    • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      It absolutely proves his post false.

      source
  • Arkouda@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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 ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Bring back vivisection! (you volunteering?)

      You don’t seem to know what ethical means.

      source

      • Arkouda@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I know what ethical means. Do you know what asinine means?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

      source

      • Arkouda@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I understand the history of Science which is why I made my OP.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Brkdncr@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

  source

  • Arkouda@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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 ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

      source

      • Arkouda@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

        Why bother engaging in the first place if you won’t follow up?

        source
• maxwells_daemon@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

  source

  • Arkouda@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

    source

    • maxwells_daemon@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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

      • Arkouda@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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.

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments