The Physics Of Science And Morality

I shall call this view into question. I claim that a scientist’s decision to investigate any research topic has both methodological and moral dimensions, although in some cases the latter comes more to the fore than in others. In this sense morality is a constitutive element of science, and not something impose on science from outside.

This book really leads me to consider some important and essential issues in scientific research. In my point of view, the first theme of the book is the morality and ethical issue. As we all know, under the today’s regulation and laws, the right

No one can lay claim to the past. The past belongs to everyone. Its remains are to be explored, analyzed, shared, and documented so as to remain available for future generations. By delving into its research, we are able to further understand those from whom we descended and more accurately place ourselves within the timeline of the Earth. We are able to better comprehend how we have evolved as a species every time we find new clues. While this information may be controversial to the few of the religious extreme, it is invaluable to the entirety of the human race. In the conflict of science and belief systems, preferential treatment should be given to advancement of scientific inquiry and of our pool of knowledge as this has benefits for all, and to make exceptions based on belief is unjust.

It can make it difficult to fathom concepts such as sanctity. Science has not told the world whether a human life is worth the equivalent, less than, or more than a dog bone because there are so many perceptions of worth based on so many different

Scientist should be held morally responsible due to the lack of knowledge on what will the long term effect will be with a wrongfully experimented experiments. In the book flower for Algernon Professor Nemur didn’t wait to see what would end up happening to Algernon, he just saw that the experiment work and made Algernon smarter, not realizing the Algernon would die due to the experiment. Time after Charlie got his operation and got smarter he was starting to begin to getting side effects of the surgery like hallucinations, memory loss, and is still having trouble developing his sexual awareness. In the text ‘Designer babies’ debate it states “I don’t want my children to have heritable diseases ... that increases the risk of cancer.” This is

Churchland begins by agreeing with the observations of Aristotle, Hume and Darwin that humans are social animal but extends them by asking what they mean in terms of brain physiology. However, David Hume 's argument still remains, one cannot deduce what ought to be from something that is. I.e knowing why people lie, will not deduce reasoning behind when it is ok to lie. In this case translating to, “you cannot derive moral values directly from facts uncovered by science”. This is the basis of the only true respectable type of thought, for most anglo-american philosophers, known as 'deductive thinking '. With this in mind, it seems as though science has no place in our understanding of morality, and therefore no need for the book? However, Churchland argues, without trying to disprove, early on, that this type of philosophical approach in its

#7 Moral reasoning is individual or collective practical reasoning about what, morally, one ought to do. Philosophical examination of moral reasoning faces both distinctive puzzles

The concept of ethics in scientific research has continuously evolved over several hundred years; records of the first experiments on humans, documented in the bible, date back to 550 BC.1 Throughout history, notorious cases of scientific misconduct have established guidelines and set the precedence for the governing standards of ethical conduct today.

In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by Emmanuel Kant, we are presented with this conception of Kant’s called “the Form of Law.” With the discussion of the Form of Law, we will also come to encounter both moral law and the categorical imperative. Kant’s notion of the Form of Law, we will later see has a great deal of significance within the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Within the discussion of the Form of Law’s significance in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant also provides us with a response to a claim offered by David Hume. Also, provided in this paper will be both a discussion of correctness of action and the normative requirement. In this paper, I will present Kant’s conception of the Form of Law, as well as its significance in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and finally I will conclude the paper by evaluating this analysis of the structure of correctness in action and the normatively required.

The general definition of science is the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experiments. On the contrary, it is much more than that. Much like art, it holds a sense of subjectivity. It is an abstract paradigm that requires the input of one’s personal beliefs and values to help it progress. It is much more than just facts and theories of how the world works, but also a prime representation of the ethics and beliefs of the scientists that help mold it today. Science is a database for factual knowledge on the natural world, furthermore, it also incorporates the environment it has created. The environment consists of the particular people, behaviors, and struggles of the scientific community. Even though science incorporates many thoughts and ideas, it does not contain other ideas. Science does not hold a moral category. It does not define what is considered right and what is considered wrong. It merely provides information on certain ideas for further understanding. Any theories and applications of it can lead to other subjects. This idea also applies to what the acquired scientific knowledge is used for. Even though the ideas of complexity and subjectivity are present in both science and art, the concept of aesthetic should only be important for art. Despite requiring organization and general cleanliness, science does not need to pass the eye test. Science should be represented through proper data and its analysis and the non factual features need to have a rational reasoning. To judge or base an idea on its appeal does not equal to

Science can give us as good a moral code as any religion. Or so Daniel Dennett claims in his book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Dennett provides the tools to explain human morality, and inadvertently leads the way to the conclusion (which he does not share) that science can clarify how human morality came about, but not serve as a substitute or model for moral codes, religious and secular alike.

1); also, science “confers no special authority to answer a nonscientific question” (pp.1). Scientists claim that science is attacked from two sides, the fundamentalism of Christianity, and the humanities. Nevertheless, for the humanities to respect and distinguish the sciences is not enough, they need, “the humanities to submit to the sciences and be subsumed by them” (pp.3). If God exists, is for philosophy to determine, not science. Traditional religions and cultures influence believer’s interpretation of understanding and are traditions of value. As a result, the relationship between value and fact in these traditions is so strong that values often overpower facts. The study of greater ideas about life are common in science, but these ideas cannot be only based or accepted completely on scientific grounds; a scientific viewpoint may not be as broad as many think. Scientists cannot note the way natural sciences and humanities differ, since humanities would have to be explainable by science. Besides, humanities do not advance, progress, or study the way sciences do, the humanities are a study of the sciences inwardness. The central goal of scientism is the transformation of non-scientific dialogue into scientific dialogue. Meanwhile, respected

He explains that both have different roles in human life as, “Science tells us what is. Religion tells us what ought to be.” Reason gives humans an understanding of how the world works currently, but it does not evaluate morality and encourage improvement. Reason focuses on the literal instead of the metaphysical. Since they have different roles, science and religion do not need to

Though I found the discussion on field theories and its application to the development of academic science interesting last Monday, I would like to write more about the topic on Wednesday which I am interested in more in this reflection. Again, I will try to summarize my opinion to the questions we discussed in class and jot some thoughts here.

Our conclusions on any occasion are direct consequences of any developed concept in our minds. We see the world as we want to see it through our personal perceptions. When we are categorizing anything as desirable or otherwise, we judge using the concepts that we hold to us. Although different concepts may shape different conclusions, they are all influenced by beliefs and experiences. So, to what extent do our beliefs modify the conclusions that we may reach? The knowledge obtained through out someone’s life through their experiences, or belief system direct decision making almost completely. In my essay I will explore how Ethics and Human sciences correlate with this topic. I will also implement and tie in the connections of Reason and link these concepts with belief and experiences.