Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AllanfromWales1 t1_iv64fwr wrote

That's a tremendously naive interpretation of how science works. The reality - including things like the reproducibility crisis and citation farming - is a very human endeavour. What science gets done is largely based on who is willing to pay for it, and as often as not the sponsor of the work is looking for a specific outcome, and looks askance at paying for work which doesn't reach the desired conclusion.

Doesn't sound very moral to me.

53

nibbler666 t1_iv6to0k wrote

You have misunderstood the text. It does not claim to provide the answer to how science works. It just illuminates a particular sociological aspect of the workings of science.

2

AllanfromWales1 t1_iv6vp9w wrote

But it does so using a highly simplistic model of what science is and how it works, and as such is not of value.

11

nibbler666 t1_iv6vvjn wrote

It is a "model" about one single aspect of science.

−6

AllanfromWales1 t1_iv6wpv8 wrote

It is a "model" about one single aspect of an idealised concept of science, not actual science.

9

MonkEfficient4237 t1_iv9o9kk wrote

So, what are you arguing, that the outcome of science throughout the history was not moral, because of the financial aspect that tends to be involved? That would be ridiculous.

−1

AllanfromWales1 t1_iv9qldp wrote

No. I am arguing that science is an enterprise to improve human knowledge and understanding which is flawed by the drivers involved in it. I do not believe that even if it were perfect that would make it 'moral' under any rational interpretation of that term.

7

MonkEfficient4237 t1_iv9rzba wrote

Science works having at the base of its foundation moral principles and also creates moral outcomes, and also helps in revealing a better moral system for humans, so it is very hard for someone to say that morality has little to do with it like you are saying. The "yes but it is not being perfect" as an argument has little to no value in most discussions, at least to me, as it is already an abstract unachievable thing in the first place.

−5

AllanfromWales1 t1_iv9s4sh wrote

> as it is already an abstract unachievable thing in the first place

Morality?

More generally, that's like saying eyes are moral things because morality uses what they see. Which is nonsense.

2

kreukle t1_iv6nhla wrote

Morality is relative, and so is science.

There are many possible moral systems - it should be evident from the situation in the world today. If you can justify something based on your values/beliefs - it invokes your "feeling of justice". And there are many values/beliefs combinations. Not everything is pure facts of science (something like "single truth of what the world is") to compare against and tell what is the best, especially because of the uncertainty of the future.

Science is not "here on its own", but in people's minds. More importantly, it is spread in society. The rigorous methods/tools of science are one thing, but the gaining of knowledge as social debates (reasoning based) is another. The models that science builds are not "absolutely true". Therefore, the selection of models by social interactions (persuasion, truthfulness, financing, etc.) has similar characteristics as social morality.

To put it simply: the "fighting" of social models is the same as the "fighting" of scientific models.

−12

glossteam2 t1_iv8012i wrote

Relative morality is called situational ethics, is that what you claim science to be.

3

My3rstAccount t1_iv8ngy2 wrote

Pretty much. Quantum on one side, relativity on the other. Gnostic vs kabbalah, but we all worship the same god. Apparently joining the two is a biatch.

I know I sound crazy, but I'm surprised it's confusing people considering even Einstein looked to philosophy for answers after relativity. Dude was recycling old ideas to see if they fit anywhere else, trying to turn feelings into numbers. Not a bad idea if you have the vision to see it and the time to waste chasing it.

0

hopeyglass1979 t1_iw42nuo wrote

Sounds like some thinly veiled crypto-fascism couched in a bunch of preening bafflegab, jerkoff.

1