4 ms·

what he did was within the bounds of the experiment I still don't understand how this is supposed to make anything okay. The experiment was set up to see how

what he did was within the bounds of the experiment I still don't understand how this is supposed to make anything okay. The experiment was set up to see how people dealt with a system inherently fueled by some combination of altruism and curiosity. I personally assume this means that, among other things, it is looking at some measure of morality. Thing of it is, you can't really construct an experiment about morality or something like it without making immorality (or something like it) within the bounds. (Or, more accurately, you could attempt to but then you'd also be dealing with a measure of how people respond to authority and similar which complicates things.) Secondly, I think I could say just as easily that being an asshole is well within the bounds of US law. Yet, people tend to respond negatively to people being assholes. What is allowed and what is "right" or "good" or whatever are two entirely different topics.

kiiski 15y ago
When you're doing an experiment, you want to see what actually happens rather than what would happen if everyone did the "right" thing. Thus, doing the "wrong" thing (that is within the bounds of the experiment) is a "good" thing, because it shows how and where the system fails. Your "secondly" part isn't exactly correct, because the US law is not an experiment that people are voluntarily participating in. Its purpose is not to see how things would work. Its purpose is just to work. People don't like it when it doesn't.
- petercooper 15y ago
  It's tricky, because "experiment" doesn't necessarily mean you're following the scientific method and its levels of rigor. Some people "experiment" with leaving produce at the side of the road and having a trust based money box for people to pay. If someone takes all of the produce without paying one day, the experimenter isn't necessarily going to analyze it scientifically and be happy at the seeming failure, but instead think "I can't trust people enough - experiment's over."

kiiski 15y ago

When you're doing an experiment, you want to see what actually happens rather than what would happen if everyone did the "right" thing. Thus, doing the "wrong" thing (that is within the bounds of the experiment) is a "good" thing, because it shows how and where the system fails. Your "secondly" part isn't exactly correct, because the US law is not an experiment that people are voluntarily participating in. Its purpose is not to see how things would work. Its purpose is just to work. People don't like it when it doesn't.

petercooper 15y ago
It's tricky, because "experiment" doesn't necessarily mean you're following the scientific method and its levels of rigor. Some people "experiment" with leaving produce at the side of the road and having a trust based money box for people to pay. If someone takes all of the produce without paying one day, the experimenter isn't necessarily going to analyze it scientifically and be happy at the seeming failure, but instead think "I can't trust people enough - experiment's over."