Posted by bob on June 1, 2000, at 22:10:12
In reply to Re: Ahh, science, posted by Adam on June 1, 2000, at 10:35:44
> I agree. I don't know why God keeps entering the scientific discussion, except to be inclusive or PC. I think Steven Weinberg might have been right when he said such musings on the Creator and purpose are attributable to "nostalgia".
And in saying such, Weinberg shows his own prejudices, perhaps, more than his understanding of the beliefs of others. I think Einstein, among others, made it quite clear that by gaining greater understanding of physical "laws", his own sense of mystery of the Ultimate Questions and Their Answers also grew and this lead to a stronger faith in a Creator than he had previous to his scientific enlightenment. Some argue that the very existence of order is enough evidence of a plan and, therefore, a planner ... and that the finding of such order, particularly where there was none before, brings spiritual comfort as much as it brings intellectual satisfaction.
It gets back to the old "the more you know, the more you realize how little you know" argument. If you can acknowledge the limitations of the mind in grasping creation, then having a spiritual faith that is orthogonal to sensory data is not an unreasonable proposition. That no one has either proven or disproven the existence of a Creator supports the orthogonality of faith to proof.
> Whatever uses the information we gather with science is put to, that's a question for ethicists, I suppose. Scientists who have something to say on ethical matters certainly should chime in, but then we should understand they are dealing with morals, not with science, which should remain neutral on the subject.I can't disagree more. Ask a scientist "What is science?", and you'll probably receive an answer on average somewhere along the lines of "an endeavor to gain further understanding about our world." Ask why we need this understanding, and I'd bet you'd start hearing responses about the need or desire "to predict and/or control natural phenomenon" with a sentiment about improving the human condition.
That desire (there goes objectivity) to predict and/or to control is inherently a political motive, in the sense that "politics" is the "science" of power and its use. Scientific decisions, because they are made by human beings, are inherently value-laden. (Sorry, Adam, but you mentioned this first --) the social implications of the Uncertainty Principle is that the mere act of *observation* influences the nature of what is observed.
But fessing up to the moral and ethical dimensions of doing science should not be meant as a means to stifle scientists. Rather, I think it is a responsibility scientists have to take the lead on such issues, rather than abandoning such debates and conversations to people who do not understand the voice of science in these debates. The more scientists clam up when someone raises the "specter" of the morality of scientific progress, the less progress there will be.
One "for instance" -- I am 100% in favor of the genetic engineering of humans. Not only do I feel there are strong scientific reasons to do so, I also believe this coincides 100% with my spiritual beliefs. The simple fact of the matter, though, is that humanity is NOT ready to face the implications of such power. We're not even mature enough as a species to discuss genetically-engineered tomatoes. But the maturation will never happen until the debate is joined by all voices and with an open mind on all sides. It's hard enough for an individual to have an open mind -- it seems near impossible for a "group mind" to be open at this stage in our development.
So, it may take a Donald Trump cloning himself and then spending all his money of research grants for those who believe that the neurochemical essence of memory can be discerned, "downloaded", and then "uploaded" into another brain before people start seriously confronting this issue.
But don't let the objectivity of sensory data fool you -- as soon as it passes into interpretation, it becomes an act with moral dimensions.
cheers,
bob
poster:bob
thread:34863
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000526/msgs/35607.html