3 ms·
Surely you see the negative consequences of past inquiry as, at the very least, a cautionary tale? The idea of, "Science at all cost!" should, by now, be thoro
by TameAntelope 5y ago
Surely you see the negative consequences of past inquiry as, at the very least, a cautionary tale?
The idea of, "Science at all cost!" should, by now, be thoroughly debunked for a number of very clear reasons, some specifically in this area of genetics and psychology (is there an exception for Poe's Law when talking about genetic behavioral outcomes?).
We must be careful, and Dr. Harden does seem to understand that, which is good.
- TulliusCicero 5y agoThat doesn't disagree with anything I said. Being careful in scientific inquiry is fine; saying, "we shouldn't research X at all, because maybe the knowledge would be used badly" is not. If there were only possible negatives, it might be more understandable, but of course that's not true. Learning more about how genetics affect behavior could, for example, lead to better treatments for behavioral disorders.
- TameAntelope 5y agoNot every comment needs to disagree with its parent. :)
- TulliusCicero 5y agoFair. In my mind, there's a distinction between science-as-knowledge and science-as-practice. There are obviously many potentially unethical scientific practices, but I don't think gaining scientific knowledge can ever be wrong, in the sense of merely having the knowledge itself being wrong (of course, it's possible for it to have been gathered in an unethical way).
- NoImmatureAdHom 5y agoThe vast, vast, vast majority of the consequences of doing science like this have been positive. We are only able to sustain so many humans on this planet because we have bothered to understand stuff like this. You can't selectively understand it for plants and non-human animals, but not for humans. It is obvious to everyone that the same basic principles apply.