James Aach's comment is worth special notice (but do click it on and read all of it):
On a societal level, if used wisely, good science can help provide some helpful clues on the likelihood of outcomes, but it can't decide whether those outcomes are good or bad. That's the morality part. The conflicts we're seeing today often seem to arise when scientists seek to provide moral arguments using the authority of science, or when moralists or ideologues start with a position and either embrace or denigrate science depending on what it says about the factual likelihood of that position. The two types of arguments should remain separate.
As an example: science can show with a high degree of repeatability that men with beards are just as smart as the clean-shaven, but that's no reason not to discriminate against their grooming choice as morally objectionable. Conversely, we must recognize that the moral decision to discriminate does not make the scientific conclusion of equal intelligence invalid - - the moral judgement of unacceptable fashion sense does not by itself reduce the likelihood of a successful, bloody revolt by these intelligent creatures.
As an example: science can show with a high degree of repeatability that men with beards are just as smart as the clean-shaven, but that's no reason not to discriminate against their grooming choice as morally objectionable. Conversely, we must recognize that the moral decision to discriminate does not make the scientific conclusion of equal intelligence invalid - - the moral judgement of unacceptable fashion sense does not by itself reduce the likelihood of a successful, bloody revolt by these intelligent creatures.
Of course, as one of the bearded tribe (I've worn a beard for more than 40 years) I must confess that it probably is wise to be on guard against a successful, bloody revolt on our part.
Post bumped.
An interesting review.
ReplyDeleteWe all learn the science of absolute physical laws in school - you can't legislate away gravity - and I speculate that when we think of science we intuitively think the same degree of "big picture" certainty applies in all cases - at least it is often reported that way and politically discussed that way. But modern science is increasingly fine-grained in its certainty - this type of cell will die in a 20% saline solution at 70 degrees C, but we don't know about 19% or 69C. The rest is all percentages and repeatability, not absolute certainty. It's human to forget this, whether layman or scientist. We all like to be lazy on the brain front.
On the other hand, what is sometimes lost when real scientific uncertainty is discussed is how many things the scientific process has removed from the uncertainty column. Science protocol can exactly define what a 20% saline solution at 70 degrees C is and repeat that exact solution endlessly in London or Jakarta - and then the electron microscope based on nuclear physics will show the same images in both locations.
On a societal level, if used wisely, good science can help provide some helpful clues on the likelihood of outcomes, but it can't decide whether those outcomes are good or bad. That's the morality part. The conflicts we're seeing today often seem to arise when scientists seek to provide moral arguments using the authority of science, or when moralists or ideologues start with a position and either embrace or denigrate science depending on what it says about the factual likelihood of that position. The two types of arguments should remain separate.
As an example: science can show with a high degree of repeatability that men with beards are just as smart as the clean-shaven, but that's no reason not to discriminate against their grooming choice as morally objectionable. Conversely, we must recognize that the moral decision to discriminate does not make the scientific conclusion of equal intelligence invalid - - the moral judgement of unacceptable fashion sense does not by itself reduce the likelihood of a successful, bloody revolt by these intelligent creatures.