4 ms·

This isn't really responsive to grandparent's comment, which seem more concerned with the scientific process than the actual findings. Also, explosions can be

This isn't really responsive to grandparent's comment, which seem more concerned with the scientific process than the actual findings. Also, explosions can be good, too. The Nobel prize wasn't named after a terrorist :)

jakeogh 9y ago
Sure it is, the point is you cant separate discovery between good and bad until after the fact with an opinion. GP thinks morals should guide self censorship of discovery before the discovery, like somehow discovers know repercussions beforehand and should avoid particular avenues because that will somehow stop others who ignored the review board. It wont happen. Someone will try it. What does saying "dont look here" do?
- runesoerensen 9y ago
  That depends entirely on the ethics and morals you choose to adopt. There are certainly ethics that allow you to assess the moral worth of an action prior to knowing the result. For instance, deontologists like Kant would not care about the outcome to determine whether an action is right or wrong. "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law" Utilitarianists such as Mill would seek to maximize utility and would very much factor in the end result.
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    Namedropping philosophers like it's an argument is only relevant in theater. Will n scientists deciding not to look into something prevent it's discovery?
    - runesoerensen 9y ago
      > Namedropping philosophers like it's an argument is only relevant in theater I'm not namedropping for the sake of namedropping, and I don't know why you'd say philosophers are only relevant in theater. We're discussing ethics and failing to understand the contributions of philosophy in that context is a major mistake (your reasoning is primarily utilitarianist and I'm not saying that's wrong, just what it is. Utilitarianism is very widely used in modern societies). We're also debating science. Who do you think developed ideas of scientific processes; what knowledge is and how we attain it? > Will n scientists deciding not to look into something prevent it's discovery? If getting to a discovery requires unreasonably horrible actions I hope it'll at least be delayed until such time it can be made without such horrible actions. Many have suffered throughout history in the name of scientific progress. Plenty of ethics are implemented in science already. That's a good and ever-evolving thing.
      - jakeogh 9y ago
        Point taken. I cant help but build my morals into my assumptions, so I assume we are not talking about doing things on individuals against their will. You kinda pointed at that possibility and I appreciate it. This (what GP and this story is about) is voluntary. Like letting a primitive android into your house so you can order pizza, or carrying around a sophisticated connected computer that informs you. The next step is always tighter integration. Pretending that an ethical review board is going to prevent "closed source humans" is not going to work. People understanding it is the only way I can see to prevent it (it's already the status quo). I'm honestly looking for suggestions.
        icebraining 9y ago
        This (what GP and this story is about) is voluntary. How can a monkey give consent?
        ben_w 9y ago
        I don’t believe a monkey can. I also don’t believe a human can, because we look at that nice doctor who is offering sincere advice and think “they have my best interests at heart”. We certainly don’t make rational judgments of probability, because if we as a species could do that, lotteries would not exist.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- icebraining 9y ago
  Klasiaster's point isn't about the results and its repercussions, it's about the process itself.

jakeogh 9y ago

Sure it is, the point is you cant separate discovery between good and bad until after the fact with an opinion. GP thinks morals should guide self censorship of discovery before the discovery, like somehow discovers know repercussions beforehand and should avoid particular avenues because that will somehow stop others who ignored the review board. It wont happen. Someone will try it. What does saying "dont look here" do?

runesoerensen 9y ago
That depends entirely on the ethics and morals you choose to adopt. There are certainly ethics that allow you to assess the moral worth of an action prior to knowing the result. For instance, deontologists like Kant would not care about the outcome to determine whether an action is right or wrong. "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law" Utilitarianists such as Mill would seek to maximize utility and would very much factor in the end result.
- jakeogh 9y ago
  Namedropping philosophers like it's an argument is only relevant in theater. Will n scientists deciding not to look into something prevent it's discovery?
  - runesoerensen 9y ago
    > Namedropping philosophers like it's an argument is only relevant in theater I'm not namedropping for the sake of namedropping, and I don't know why you'd say philosophers are only relevant in theater. We're discussing ethics and failing to understand the contributions of philosophy in that context is a major mistake (your reasoning is primarily utilitarianist and I'm not saying that's wrong, just what it is. Utilitarianism is very widely used in modern societies). We're also debating science. Who do you think developed ideas of scientific processes; what knowledge is and how we attain it? > Will n scientists deciding not to look into something prevent it's discovery? If getting to a discovery requires unreasonably horrible actions I hope it'll at least be delayed until such time it can be made without such horrible actions. Many have suffered throughout history in the name of scientific progress. Plenty of ethics are implemented in science already. That's a good and ever-evolving thing.
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      Point taken. I cant help but build my morals into my assumptions, so I assume we are not talking about doing things on individuals against their will. You kinda pointed at that possibility and I appreciate it. This (what GP and this story is about) is voluntary. Like letting a primitive android into your house so you can order pizza, or carrying around a sophisticated connected computer that informs you. The next step is always tighter integration. Pretending that an ethical review board is going to prevent "closed source humans" is not going to work. People understanding it is the only way I can see to prevent it (it's already the status quo). I'm honestly looking for suggestions.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        This (what GP and this story is about) is voluntary. How can a monkey give consent?
        ben_w 9y ago
        I don’t believe a monkey can. I also don’t believe a human can, because we look at that nice doctor who is offering sincere advice and think “they have my best interests at heart”. We certainly don’t make rational judgments of probability, because if we as a species could do that, lotteries would not exist.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
icebraining 9y ago
Klasiaster's point isn't about the results and its repercussions, it's about the process itself.