It turns my blood to ice. I simply cannot understand how scientists could pursue research so OBVIOUSLY wrong. I have no right to reject their man-made monstrosity?
This may be how humanity ends. Honestly, I can't say we don't deserve it. On the bright side though... I was never religious, but seeing actual evil in the world has brought me closer to God.
It returned me to my faith. When I clearly saw the evil last year and the vile behavior of people snd places I had trusted, I realized then I only had God. I have peace and determination now and a certainty of Gods protection and strength. Ask Him. He will give you peace and help you through these trials. I will 🙏🏻for you cetera. He knows who you are. Do a search of all the scriptures on fear snd anxiety. He will overcome this.
Because in the lab, the scientist is acting in moral vacuum, just like a lawyer is when defending a client they know is guilty: if they did not do so, they couldn't function it is claimed.
Also, scientists say: "Science is neither moral nor immoral, it simply is. The implementation of science in society is always moral."
A fancy way of sayin "Don't blame the inventor of fire for arson".
You mention something extremely important that simply isn't discussed enough. Your examples are worth analyzing in a bit more detail.
What part isn't true? The eternal philosophical problem of "is" vs. "ought," as Hume called it. People, even those who are well educated and have studied science and should know better, all too easily seem unable to grasp a few key facts:
1. The physical world, objective reality, the universe (call it what you like) operates by its own laws. These are often discoverable by Man, after much study. They are often modeled by Man's intellectual tools such as mathematics, physics, and so on, at times, with astonishing precision. A good theory (model) has both descriptive and predictive value. THE LAWS OF NATURE ARE IMMUTABLE, AND NOT SUBJECT TO MAN'S MODIFICATION IN THE SLIGHTEST.
2. The other great domain of human existence is the mental. This part of our perceived reality in contrast has few if any rules. We are perfectly free to believe that 2+2=5, or that there are more than two sexes or any other whim our imaginations can whip up. The beliefs we create may, of course, be true, false, or undecideable, referenced to the outer world.
3. Without exception, ALL human laws, morals, customs, values, ethics and so on exist solely in domain (2). This remains true whether or not your believe in a God, or that some values are "absolute." About the closest to "absolute" any of our value systems will become is if they make reference to measurable phenomena in the real world.
You can't make an "ought" from an "is." If you can, you probably stand to gain the Nobel Prize or its equivalent in philosophy. Smarter men than you and I have been trying for thousands of years. The physical world is totally impartial, indifferent, heedless to the greatest praises of thanks nor the most piteous wailing and gnashing of teeth that humans may direct at the heavens.
Finally, to return to your final sentence: We should not blame the match for the arson. It is merely a tool whose purpose is to make fire. No moral agency whatsoever. Nor is is the fire's fault that it's a fire. It has certain attributes that man may find useful or destructive, depending upon the situation. It's a non-living thing, having no moral agency any more than a can of gasoline has.
No, but we do (or should) blame the arsonist for the arson.
Finally, please don't think that I'm arguing that morality is useless. Of course not. Without it, we couldn't have civilization and many other (usually) nice things. I'm merely arguing that ethics, norms, moralities, and so on are in fact, "social constructs." Even Nietzsche, who surely was as morally ambiguous as any modern philosopher (at least those I've read) allowed that what was morally "good" tended to produce good outcomes, while the "bad" tended to produce unhappy ones.
I'm not a lawyer, but remember that a lawyer defending a guilty client is not there to get the client off; he is there to make sure the client gets a fair trial.
Seriously? That might be what they say but it's not what they think. Johnny Cochran and his ilk didn't become multi-millionaires ensuring people get a fair trail. They got rich via a reputation of getting wealthy people set free. Their job is to so confuse the average juror they don't know what to think.
This naivete really has to stop if we have any chance of turning things around. The system is corrupt to the core at all levels. People need to laugh out loud when folks say things like "it's the job of defense lawyers to ensure a fair trial". It may have been true once upon a time but it is so far beyond reality now that it's laughable. They don't view it as their job.
These comfortable lies are the reason things continue to spiral downward. I don't mean to beat up on Wild Bill, but please stop repeating the lies told by these sociopaths. It's about two minutes to midnight and it's time to snap out of it.
Must be a US thing: here they see it as their duty to get the criminal off scot free even when knowing they are guilty.
The reverse is also true: the prosecutor's job is to get the defendant sentenced no matter the evidence.
The logic being if the prosecutor had enough to declare a trial, they have enough for a conviction. Also, the politicians manning the courts (we have a board of politicians lacking any judicial education other than procedural formalities passing verdict assisted by a judge instead of juries) does not see any evidence, they only hear the prosecutor's summary of questioning and the presentation of the evidence.
It's up to the defending lawyer to argue against all of that.
Fair trial is the alleged goal, and a good goal in my opinion. Prosecutors are to seek justice, but I'm afraid most in US seek what you describe. You are describing presumption of guilt, whereas in US there is a presumption of innocence. Or am I oversimplifying?
See my earlier screed about (human) "laws", morals, ethics and values being purely arbitrary constructs based on common (if not universal) agreement among humans. For extra credit, contrast with Nature's Laws, which are not subject to any human court's jurisdiction.
Los Alamos didn't know if they'd cause all the molecules in the universe to fuse together and detonated the bomb anyway, then Oppenheimer quoted the Gita. Goes back to Frankenstein and Faust and Enlightenment science. Iain McGilchrist, in The Matter with Things, quotes Alfred North Whitehead: ...Some of the major disasters of mankind have been produced by the narrowness of men with a good methodology" Add in an epidemic of facultative sociopathy (no doubt caused by the capacity to deanimate suffering experimental animals) and greed, and damn, we need Arthur C. Clarke's aliens to land out of Childhood's End if we aren't to go extinct. Bloody hell.
Childhood's End was a neat novel. Without giving too much away, and most people will never read it anyway: the aliens that land turn out to have visited the Earth thousands of years earlier. In physical appearance they resemble (and were the cause of) the popular conception of the Devil. Unlike the Judeo-Christian Satan, whose intent was in part to give Man the gift (?) of knowing good from evil, Clarke's aliens were akin to neutral observers, witnessing the elevation of a civilization to a higher plane, thus the end of their race's childhood.
As a pessimist, I fear that Man will indeed destroy himself, or at the least put on a good dress rehearsal of Armageddon. At bottom, we are biologically scarcely different from our ancestors from two hundred thousand years ago. But now we have God-like powers, and even more coming on line daily. Not exactly a reassuring formula for continued existence.
It is, but without it no one could do anything. You couldn't even invent a knife made of flint if you were to be held morally responsible for everyone then slicing someone else with a knife of their own.
Oppenheimer, Fermi and the others involved likened the nuclear weapons to natural disasters.
Problem is, once something has been done once, anyone else can do it again, and often do it 'better'. Science comes first, then practical application, then regulation. Wasn't anyone sat down and invented modern roads and driver's licenses and traffic lights and then went and invented the car.
It's an eternal pattern, and if one governement regulates or bans an avenue of research, another will pick it up. To be really extreme: without the nazi's antisemitism influencing even natural science, the US wouldn't have had an atomic bomb - but Germany possibly would have managed to build them. Sometimes, political correctness results in the lesser evil, it would appear.
It's no surprise that US businesses and sundry puts its GOF research in China - it's banned in the US. Was the sam thing when Bush Sr put the kinbosh on certain genetic research back then too, the scientists got lots of offers from around the world and went there instead.
Can't get it back in the box, once it's been opened.
"If it saves one life it is worth the inconvenience." Said about every safety feature added and law enacted. Wherein I roll my eyes and sigh.
Except for this "seeing actual evil in the world has brought me closer to God." This makes the inconvenience worth it and more bearable for me. Get closer, make room for more.
So evil it almost doesn’t compute.
It turns my blood to ice. I simply cannot understand how scientists could pursue research so OBVIOUSLY wrong. I have no right to reject their man-made monstrosity?
This may be how humanity ends. Honestly, I can't say we don't deserve it. On the bright side though... I was never religious, but seeing actual evil in the world has brought me closer to God.
It returned me to my faith. When I clearly saw the evil last year and the vile behavior of people snd places I had trusted, I realized then I only had God. I have peace and determination now and a certainty of Gods protection and strength. Ask Him. He will give you peace and help you through these trials. I will 🙏🏻for you cetera. He knows who you are. Do a search of all the scriptures on fear snd anxiety. He will overcome this.
Because in the lab, the scientist is acting in moral vacuum, just like a lawyer is when defending a client they know is guilty: if they did not do so, they couldn't function it is claimed.
Also, scientists say: "Science is neither moral nor immoral, it simply is. The implementation of science in society is always moral."
A fancy way of sayin "Don't blame the inventor of fire for arson".
You mention something extremely important that simply isn't discussed enough. Your examples are worth analyzing in a bit more detail.
What part isn't true? The eternal philosophical problem of "is" vs. "ought," as Hume called it. People, even those who are well educated and have studied science and should know better, all too easily seem unable to grasp a few key facts:
1. The physical world, objective reality, the universe (call it what you like) operates by its own laws. These are often discoverable by Man, after much study. They are often modeled by Man's intellectual tools such as mathematics, physics, and so on, at times, with astonishing precision. A good theory (model) has both descriptive and predictive value. THE LAWS OF NATURE ARE IMMUTABLE, AND NOT SUBJECT TO MAN'S MODIFICATION IN THE SLIGHTEST.
2. The other great domain of human existence is the mental. This part of our perceived reality in contrast has few if any rules. We are perfectly free to believe that 2+2=5, or that there are more than two sexes or any other whim our imaginations can whip up. The beliefs we create may, of course, be true, false, or undecideable, referenced to the outer world.
3. Without exception, ALL human laws, morals, customs, values, ethics and so on exist solely in domain (2). This remains true whether or not your believe in a God, or that some values are "absolute." About the closest to "absolute" any of our value systems will become is if they make reference to measurable phenomena in the real world.
You can't make an "ought" from an "is." If you can, you probably stand to gain the Nobel Prize or its equivalent in philosophy. Smarter men than you and I have been trying for thousands of years. The physical world is totally impartial, indifferent, heedless to the greatest praises of thanks nor the most piteous wailing and gnashing of teeth that humans may direct at the heavens.
Finally, to return to your final sentence: We should not blame the match for the arson. It is merely a tool whose purpose is to make fire. No moral agency whatsoever. Nor is is the fire's fault that it's a fire. It has certain attributes that man may find useful or destructive, depending upon the situation. It's a non-living thing, having no moral agency any more than a can of gasoline has.
No, but we do (or should) blame the arsonist for the arson.
Finally, please don't think that I'm arguing that morality is useless. Of course not. Without it, we couldn't have civilization and many other (usually) nice things. I'm merely arguing that ethics, norms, moralities, and so on are in fact, "social constructs." Even Nietzsche, who surely was as morally ambiguous as any modern philosopher (at least those I've read) allowed that what was morally "good" tended to produce good outcomes, while the "bad" tended to produce unhappy ones.
I'm not a lawyer, but remember that a lawyer defending a guilty client is not there to get the client off; he is there to make sure the client gets a fair trial.
Seriously? That might be what they say but it's not what they think. Johnny Cochran and his ilk didn't become multi-millionaires ensuring people get a fair trail. They got rich via a reputation of getting wealthy people set free. Their job is to so confuse the average juror they don't know what to think.
This naivete really has to stop if we have any chance of turning things around. The system is corrupt to the core at all levels. People need to laugh out loud when folks say things like "it's the job of defense lawyers to ensure a fair trial". It may have been true once upon a time but it is so far beyond reality now that it's laughable. They don't view it as their job.
These comfortable lies are the reason things continue to spiral downward. I don't mean to beat up on Wild Bill, but please stop repeating the lies told by these sociopaths. It's about two minutes to midnight and it's time to snap out of it.
Must be a US thing: here they see it as their duty to get the criminal off scot free even when knowing they are guilty.
The reverse is also true: the prosecutor's job is to get the defendant sentenced no matter the evidence.
The logic being if the prosecutor had enough to declare a trial, they have enough for a conviction. Also, the politicians manning the courts (we have a board of politicians lacking any judicial education other than procedural formalities passing verdict assisted by a judge instead of juries) does not see any evidence, they only hear the prosecutor's summary of questioning and the presentation of the evidence.
It's up to the defending lawyer to argue against all of that.
This is of course over-simplified.
Fair trial is the alleged goal, and a good goal in my opinion. Prosecutors are to seek justice, but I'm afraid most in US seek what you describe. You are describing presumption of guilt, whereas in US there is a presumption of innocence. Or am I oversimplifying?
See my earlier screed about (human) "laws", morals, ethics and values being purely arbitrary constructs based on common (if not universal) agreement among humans. For extra credit, contrast with Nature's Laws, which are not subject to any human court's jurisdiction.
That is a sick rationalization of the evil science can perpetrate. Remember, Oppenheimer recognized the evil wrought by the bomb.
Los Alamos didn't know if they'd cause all the molecules in the universe to fuse together and detonated the bomb anyway, then Oppenheimer quoted the Gita. Goes back to Frankenstein and Faust and Enlightenment science. Iain McGilchrist, in The Matter with Things, quotes Alfred North Whitehead: ...Some of the major disasters of mankind have been produced by the narrowness of men with a good methodology" Add in an epidemic of facultative sociopathy (no doubt caused by the capacity to deanimate suffering experimental animals) and greed, and damn, we need Arthur C. Clarke's aliens to land out of Childhood's End if we aren't to go extinct. Bloody hell.
Childhood's End was a neat novel. Without giving too much away, and most people will never read it anyway: the aliens that land turn out to have visited the Earth thousands of years earlier. In physical appearance they resemble (and were the cause of) the popular conception of the Devil. Unlike the Judeo-Christian Satan, whose intent was in part to give Man the gift (?) of knowing good from evil, Clarke's aliens were akin to neutral observers, witnessing the elevation of a civilization to a higher plane, thus the end of their race's childhood.
As a pessimist, I fear that Man will indeed destroy himself, or at the least put on a good dress rehearsal of Armageddon. At bottom, we are biologically scarcely different from our ancestors from two hundred thousand years ago. But now we have God-like powers, and even more coming on line daily. Not exactly a reassuring formula for continued existence.
Like. Problem remains.
It is, but without it no one could do anything. You couldn't even invent a knife made of flint if you were to be held morally responsible for everyone then slicing someone else with a knife of their own.
Oppenheimer, Fermi and the others involved likened the nuclear weapons to natural disasters.
Problem is, once something has been done once, anyone else can do it again, and often do it 'better'. Science comes first, then practical application, then regulation. Wasn't anyone sat down and invented modern roads and driver's licenses and traffic lights and then went and invented the car.
It's an eternal pattern, and if one governement regulates or bans an avenue of research, another will pick it up. To be really extreme: without the nazi's antisemitism influencing even natural science, the US wouldn't have had an atomic bomb - but Germany possibly would have managed to build them. Sometimes, political correctness results in the lesser evil, it would appear.
It's no surprise that US businesses and sundry puts its GOF research in China - it's banned in the US. Was the sam thing when Bush Sr put the kinbosh on certain genetic research back then too, the scientists got lots of offers from around the world and went there instead.
Can't get it back in the box, once it's been opened.
"If it saves one life it is worth the inconvenience." Said about every safety feature added and law enacted. Wherein I roll my eyes and sigh.
Except for this "seeing actual evil in the world has brought me closer to God." This makes the inconvenience worth it and more bearable for me. Get closer, make room for more.