Politically/Religously Correct Constraint on Academia

[MetalBooger]

If he wants funding then he has to, otherwise he would have to build up the resources to conduct his research privately. Nothing nasty about it, its a merit base system, and the intentions of the will of the majority are better expressed in science.

 

[JColtrane]

So this 'merit based' system is basically just determining the worth of scientific reasearch based upon how much money can be generated when it is applied?
Should science only progress when the knowledge gained generates cash?

Maybe I'm just idealistic, but I think science is more about the free pursuit of knowledge rather than making money.

I mean, what great scientist was motivated to do his research by money?

 

[Norsemaiden]

So this 'merit based' system is basically just determining the worth of scientific reasearch based upon how much money can be generated when it is applied?
Should science only progress when the knowledge gained generates cash?

Maybe I'm just idealistic, but I think science is more about the free pursuit of knowledge rather than making money.

I mean, what great scientist was motivated to do his research by money?

Good point.
And in medical reasearch too, money is spent disproportionately on finding cures for some diseases which do not kill or harm as many people as some others. For eg - AIDS prioritised over cancer.

But a major problem is that scientists who discover politically incorrect facts have their findings ignored, or buried if they are not demonized for daring to make such unacceptable conclusions. This has nothing to do with funding.
We are told lies in the fields of biology, sociology, psychology and history in order to fit in with the agenda of our rulers.

 

[derbeder]

I think it should be clear from my first post that I hold that science should not be prevented from researching and publishing data because of some notion of "morality". This "morality" is putting shackles on science. It is saying that science is a threat, and that certain facts should never be known.

There certainly are very good moral reasons not to pursue a certain sort of scientific research. For instance, it is not right to run certain kinds of psychological or medical experiments on people because of the risk to their mental and bodily health. Cases in which a subject has been scarred (mentally or otherwise) because of a certain experiment have been documented. A classic case is the famous Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 which aimed to study the effect of captivity. A group of subjects assumed the role of guards and another group that of inmates. During the experiment, the inmates were subjected to abuse by the guards who grew increasingly sadistic. Some subjects were sexual humiliated and some of them were traumatized after the experiment was over. It is plain that this experiment should not have been conducted, even if the only way to test a certain psychological hypothesis depended on conducting it. Noone has the right to cause psychological trauma in others in the name of science. With sufficient ingenuity, one can find other less risky ways to test hypotheses, but especially in the field of social psychology this can be really tough.
And similar things also apply to experiments on animals. There are some very strict laws regulating what psychological and medical experiments one can run on human and animal subjects. Some of these are perhaps not completely reasonable and are due to being over-cautious in these matters, but there is certainly a need for such control over experiments.

Your posts seem not to be focused on ethical controls over experiments as much as controls over what theories can be made public (and research on them funded etc.). At least that's what the example of the different races/different species theory suggests. On that matter I completely agree. If we have on hand a theory that qualifies as genuinely scientific (eg. creation science may not count), then it can be made public and other researchers can work on it.

Debeder says that we must limit ourselves in how we classify life biologically because it can upset the applecart of the present predominant morality or politics.
Lenin would be proud. And not much different from those who persecuted Copernicus is it?

I think this is highly sinister.

When I wrote "What we should be concerned with is the moral and political meaning and consequences of a certain classification", I certainly did not mean that there should be moral limits on what biological classifications we are allowed to make. This is a very unreasonable interpretation of my post. We are free to make any classification we like, as long as it has scientific credentials. There should indeed be no moral or political limits to scientific theorizing. But given a certain classification (eg. a classification of races into different species), we can ask the following question: if we accept this classification, are we or are we not entitled to take different moral stances towards other people on the basis of it? So in this particular case: if we accept that races are different species, are we or are we not entitled to take different moral stances towards other people on the basis of their race? This question is highly relevant to the discussion on this thread. My answer to it is: No.

.
Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't. It is not for you to say or for anyone to dictate. Since our respective species would be able to interbreed, they would still be able to fall in love.
If you know someone is different from yourself it doesn't mean that you must be hostile towards them.

It seems to me clear as anything that racial differences have no moral relevance. It is wrong, for instance, to allow different opportunities (education, jobs) to people on the basis of their race. And this is so even if it turned that races belong to different species. "It is not for you to say or anyone to dictate" could naturally be taken to mean that there is no right view on whether or not racial differences are morally relevant. If so, this would be inconsistent with thinking that racial differences do matter morally, which you seem to be holding. I am therefore unsure what it is you are trying to say here. Perhaps, making a moral judgment commonly carries a didactic tone, but I believe my claim above did not carry such a tone, as I have no didactic aspirations here.

I feel that I am a different species from the bumble bee yet I wish to preserve it. I care about all species. But I will discriminate in that if a dangerous species is threatening someone from my own species (whom I have no reason to consider a liability) then I would remove/kill that threat. You do put your own first - but that doesn't at all have to mean that you hate others.

It seems right to think that all moral agents have the same basic rights and responsibilities. Perhaps moral agents belong to different species - as would be the case if individuals from different races belong to different species. If an agent is threatening the well-being of any other agent, then it appears right for one to help put an end to this threat. (Whether this involves a license to take the life of the threatening agent is a vexed matter that I don't wish to get into now as it's irrelevant.) Yet, one cannot justly help put an end to the threat when the threatened party is of one's own race and not help eliminate the threat when the threatened party belongs to another race. If a white threatens a black, I am obliged to help remove the threat just as I am obliged to help when a black threatens a white. It is unjust to put members of your race first, even if all and only members of your race were to belong to the same species as you.

 

[MetalBooger]

I argue that science is driven by capitalism because its just another field of work meant to advance technology and the welfare of humanity. Everything is done to make a living, and you would be frivolous to work on something that could not be sold. Granted, there are always a number of buyers for any number of ideas, but why waste time doing something so time costly to advance only a few agendas, or place your own wellbeing in peril. If research in stem cells derived from aborted fetuses was actually important, I am positive we would be doing it more intensively, but what is the point? Biologically we don’t need improvements in the gene pool, because many of us if we treat our bodies right, can live fairly healthy and long lives. And what is the point in trying to make people live longer? That would only decrease productivity as populations become increasingly old, and increase consumption as populations rise. If something is really important, then by all means it will probably be developed within the realm of science, but why should the masses, who often support science with tax dollars and demand, support science, and allow their leaders to support science that does not appeal to them?

 

[JColtrane]

What I think you fail to realize is just how problematic it is to give up freedom for bread (Cf. Dostoevsky, "The Grand Inquisitor").

 

[MetalBooger]

I can see why someone would disagree, but thats just my opinion, i look at a scientist the same way i look at a shoe maker, farmer, artist or any other career. If they choose to try and earn a living doing something unpopular, then they have to pay the price by having their ideas put aside for more important matters(at least in the public realm). Its easy to say its terrible why certain things arent progressing in science, but you have to look at the priorities of societies. We have a perfect definition of species, why waste our time trying to change it? Likewise you can make your own definition of species, and no one in the professional realm will care, they cant stop you with some mysterious guy in a trenchcoat and blackmail.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I can see why someone would disagree, but thats just my opinion, i look at a scientist the same way i look at a shoe maker, farmer, artist or any other career. If they choose to try and earn a living doing something unpopular, then they have to pay the price by having their ideas put aside for more important matters(at least in the public realm). Its easy to say its terrible why certain things arent progressing in science, but you have to look at the priorities of societies. We have a perfect definition of species, why waste our time trying to change it? Likewise you can make your own definition of species, and no one in the professional realm will care, they cant stop you with some mysterious guy in a trenchcoat and blackmail.

Did you notice how I pointed out that the original definition of species seems to match with how I think species should be defined, and that one seemed perfect. This was changed and meddled with for what seem to be reasons connected with social engineering rather than any scientifically justified reason. It was changed out of the fear that the original definition would lead to people behaving less like a brotherhood of man - the very fear Derbeder says he has.

 

[Norsemaiden]

There certainly are very good moral reasons not to pursue a certain sort of scientific research. For instance, it is not right to run certain kinds of psychological or medical experiments on people because of the risk to their mental and bodily health. Cases in which a subject has been scarred (mentally or otherwise) because of a certain experiment have been documented. A classic case is the famous Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 which aimed to study the effect of captivity. A group of subjects assumed the role of guards and another group that of inmates. During the experiment, the inmates were subjected to abuse by the guards who grew increasingly sadistic. Some subjects were sexual humiliated and some of them were traumatized after the experiment was over. It is plain that this experiment should not have been conducted, even if the only way to test a certain psychological hypothesis depended on conducting it. Noone has the right to cause psychological trauma in others in the name of science. With sufficient ingenuity, one can find other less risky ways to test hypotheses, but especially in the field of social psychology this can be really tough.
And similar things also apply to experiments on animals. There are some very strict laws regulating what psychological and medical experiments one can run on human and animal subjects. Some of these are perhaps not completely reasonable and are due to being over-cautious in these matters, but there is certainly a need for such control over experiments.

Your posts seem not to be focused on ethical controls over experiments as much as controls over what theories can be made public (and research on them funded etc.). At least that's what the example of the different races/different species theory suggests. On that matter I completely agree. If we have on hand a theory that qualifies as genuinely scientific (eg. creation science may not count), then it can be made public and other researchers can work on it.


When I wrote "What we should be concerned with is the moral and political meaning and consequences of a certain classification", I certainly did not mean that there should be moral limits on what biological classifications we are allowed to make. This is a very unreasonable interpretation of my post. We are free to make any classification we like, as long as it has scientific credentials. There should indeed be no moral or political limits to scientific theorizing. But given a certain classification (eg. a classification of races into different species), we can ask the following question: if we accept this classification, are we or are we not entitled to take different moral stances towards other people on the basis of it? So in this particular case: if we accept that races are different species, are we or are we not entitled to take different moral stances towards other people on the basis of their race? This question is highly relevant to the discussion on this thread. My answer to it is: No.



It seems to me clear as anything that racial differences have no moral relevance. It is wrong, for instance, to allow different opportunities (education, jobs) to people on the basis of their race. And this is so even if it turned that races belong to different species. "It is not for you to say or anyone to dictate" could naturally be taken to mean that there is no right view on whether or not racial differences are morally relevant. If so, this would be inconsistent with thinking that racial differences do matter morally, which you seem to be holding. I am therefore unsure what it is you are trying to say here. Perhaps, making a moral judgment commonly carries a didactic tone, but I believe my claim above did not carry such a tone, as I have no didactic aspirations here.



It seems right to think that all moral agents have the same basic rights and responsibilities. Perhaps moral agents belong to different species - as would be the case if individuals from different races belong to different species. If an agent is threatening the well-being of any other agent, then it appears right for one to help put an end to this threat. (Whether this involves a license to take the life of the threatening agent is a vexed matter that I don't wish to get into now as it's irrelevant.) Yet, one cannot justly help put an end to the threat when the threatened party is of one's own race and not help eliminate the threat when the threatened party belongs to another race. If a white threatens a black, I am obliged to help remove the threat just as I am obliged to help when a black threatens a white. It is unjust to put members of your race first, even if all and only members of your race were to belong to the same species as you.

It took quite a long time for anyone to actually come up with some valid reasons for opposing the total freedom of scientists to do certain experiments. I agree that they can be damaging in the ways that you have said.

Your posts seem not to be focused on ethical controls over experiments as much as controls over what theories can be made public (and research on them funded etc.). At least that's what the example of the different races/different species theory suggests. On that matter I completely agree.

Apologies that I misjudged you, and felt that you would not agree with this.

There is no automatic requirement to treat people who are not in your family (or tribe, or race, or species) differently to those who are. But to disregard the degree of kinship is to go against a natural urge which exists in all but the most domesticated of creatures. Man is domesticated to a large extent, but still has an instinct to be ethnically nepotistic. This is less pronounced in the West than in other parts of the world. This feeling is there because it has been genetically advantageous. Morality doesn't really come into it. If a species is to remain the species that it is, it must discriminate for breeding purposes. Those members of the species who value its existence will consider it a "moral" requisite to favour their own kind in all sorts of ways to safeguard this. Those who do not value the continued existence of that species will not share that view and enemies of that species will also encourage the view that the species should not act in such a way as to preserve their separateness either.

 

[infoterror]

if society will not allow research into certain areas that may contradict political or religious doctrines society is going to be very limited in its ability to perceive the world and realities accurately.

Let me edit:

If loudmouthed elements of society deny research into socially-unacceptable areas civilization will become disconnected from reality and progress to a third-world state of disorder.

That's my (slightly more extreme) take on it. This includes too many areas to mention, from drug use to human genetics (inherited intelligence and character) to the bad effects of TV to the utter dysfunction of most of our technology. This is issue #1 today: we are in denial of reality, preferring a symbolic surrogate reality which pleases our social-acceptance desires.