Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are Scientists Less Moral or Honest than Non-scientists?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 46 of 48 (361806)
11-05-2006 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by anglagard
11-04-2006 4:26 PM


Re: Evidence is Anecdotal
I'm going to answer your last two posts in this one...
As to more harm done, why limit to 25 years?
I was just giving an example of where and how scientists have had a negative impact, and not trying to show that this is always the case. I thought people were making a bit of a holier-than-thou argument with respect to scientists.
You are correct that others certainly have had negative impacts. I have no idea what the respective death tolls are, but it doesn't matter to my overall point.
I would like to know more about your position regarding how dishonest scientists, rather than, or at least supplemental to, political pressure from dishonest politicians, is primarily responsible for the spread of HIV 25 years ago.
Ugh... yes politicians played a negative role to be sure, but I'm not sure how much can be attributed to dishonesty as opposed to simply thinking from a different worldview. My comments address only the fact that scientists are not necessarily honest based on their training, and have contributed to the HIV problem. I don't think there is a thread on this topic and I'm not sure I want to hunt down all the info on it, but I will give you a couple of short examples.
During the primary search for a cause, US and French scientists became embroiled in a longlasting feud over who discovered the HIV virus first. Its a long story but here is a short recap. It seems a bit one-sided (rather lenient on Gallo), but the conclusion remains the same...
So the controversy ended where it began. Gallo and Montagnier were deemed codiscoverers, with Montagnier the first to identify the virus and Gallo the first to show it caused the disease. What has not been owned up to is that this bitter controversy clouded one of science's greatest triumphs and drained energy from its brightest stars. Who knows the opportunities that were missed or the patients that may have been lost.
What is left unstated of course is what was lost before the feud began as well. Scientists, particularly those working in important fields, can be extremely territorial and competitive. In this case information was not disseminated as freely as it could and should have been (if the goal was helping people). Instead data was horded or disseminated in a piecemeal fashion to hinder the efforts of competitors.
After the virus was identified, tests for its presence have been the obvious next step, as well as actions to stop its spread. Unlike with any other contagion scientists decided to play social politicians and recommended courses of action which did not involve quarantine or aggressive testing procedures.
Apparently being sympathetic to homosexuals (despite the fact that they knew it was not a homosexual disease) they did not want to recommend a course of action which could impact gays (round ups or whatever). This same attitude (though now attributed to caring about anyone with HIV) continues today, for example with the withholding of at home tests as well as denial of aggressive testing regimes.
Only this last year have aggressive testing schemes begun to be talked about, with many scientists still aligned against it for purely politico-social reasons. Thankfully Clinton has broke the taboo to discuss its possibility, and promote its discussion among scientists, within 3rd world countries at least.
Self-administered at home tests in particular could be helpful (fast and easy), but the argument is largely that people who find out they are positive this way will go nuts because they don't have counseling. I'm not kidding. This seems rather an odd concern to have rather than for the as yet uninfected partner. Here is an FDA infosheet on why people should not use at home tests (which could be used every time you go to have sex), and instead use at home-mail in tests.
Though they mention a difference in accuracy, in addition to counseling, they are a bit disingenuous as:
1) Self-tests are generally created for more false positives in order to avoid false negatives. Thus if they are different it is mainly that they will generate more false positives and as such prevent infection.
2) Mail-in tests as well as those taken at doctors can also give false positives, and the lower rate of such doesn't argue about PREVENTATIVE capability.
3) Having (vaginal/anal) sex with a partner of unknown status with a condom would still be a greater risk than having a self-test come up false negative. Not to mention one could still COMBINE the two for much greater safety.
Their summation:
So, ask yourself what is the best choice for you:
An HIV home test system that has been approved by the FDA for marketing after extensive review and in which you can feel confident about the results?
OR
An HIV home test kit that has not even been reviewed by the FDA and may not provide accurate results about whether you are HIV positive or negative?
Is it worth your time, money, mental anguish and your life to gamble on an unapproved HIV home test kit? Only you can answer that question.
The question one has to ask, besides how scientists could be so poor in logic, is why the FDA is not expediting testing for the self-test instead of shilling for the mail-in? After all they are not stating that self-tests COULDN'T be good, just that they don't know because they themselves haven't tested anything yet. Shouldn't that be a priority given the extent of the crisis?
This is not to mention the scientists who are involved with making money from the disease, and helping people continue suffer in order to maintain a profit.
Your second post...
My personal expeience is that while there are a few scientists guilty of such misbehavior, the vast majority are honest, moral, and (mostly) sane. I would even say more honest, moral and sane than the population at large.
As you point out most of this topic is anecdotal. I'm not sure how much you lived among devout Xians (of the nonscience kind) but the ones I knew seemed just as reasonable/pleasant as scientists regarding every day matters. I'd even put my money on Amish being a bit more pleasant and "moral" on average than scientists. As far as scientists v general population? Eh... the same.
The crime figures you list tend to back up nwr's claim, though in a more general educational way... I agree with your suggested confounding factors.
In my personal experience, I can remember but few incidents of dishonesty related to academic integrity. In all {ABE - but one}, the perpetrator was found out and punished, either flunked or fired.
I agree that scientists have a great (or better) system to handle dishonesty within science research. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it tends to get caught more often and dealt with quickly. Perhaps that makes scientists do it less? I dunno.
In any case that's why I said (in my metaphor) that when cleaning house the scientists have a better vacuum cleaner able to reach some more hard to reach areas. Sure they may end up being more honest in a particular area of life, because there are mechanisms in place which hit those areas. That doesn't do much for anything else in one's life.
As far as Los Alamos goes... didn't Oppenheimer cheat on his wife a lot? I've just seen too many things like that or drug addiction, petty theft, petty plagiarism, etc to view scientists as more above life's pitfalls than others. Except of course when I catch an episode of COPs, I don't remember them ever busting down the door of a scientist.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by anglagard, posted 11-04-2006 4:26 PM anglagard has not replied

  
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4953 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 47 of 48 (362112)
11-06-2006 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
11-03-2006 12:26 AM


I think that the flaw (at least as i see it) in NJ's argument is that moral relativists do not have their own personal moralities, that they are amoral.
This position is not only extremely rare; it is also an extremely difficult code to follow. Fact is, we are human, and with that comes a bit of emotional, cultural, and likely even evolutionary baggage. This has significant influence on the way we live our lives. We are not mindless and unfeeling.
I'm sure, however, that some are able to put aside their "humanity" and follow such a path, but not many.
ABE: i don't expect all scientists are moral relativists either.
Edited by U can call me Cookie, : No reason given.

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 11-03-2006 12:26 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 11-06-2006 9:44 AM U can call me Cookie has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 48 of 48 (362123)
11-06-2006 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by U can call me Cookie
11-06-2006 8:29 AM


I agree with the flaw you point out. However...
This position is not only extremely rare; it is also an extremely difficult code to follow... We are not mindless and unfeeling.
This is something NJ mentioned in another thread as well. Amorality does not mean unfeeling. Or perhaps I should say that morality is not synonymous with/equal to feeling.
That I would not find a killing "wrong" or label it as such would not mean I was unmoved by it nor that I did not want to stop it.
A relativist who is amoral, and I would be one of those and agree they are rare, simply views such black and white moral labels as errant. If anything a matter of convenience to excuse one's own actions or demonize those of others by appealing to some external system, which does not really exist, to make one's tastes sound holier than thou.
A killing could be many things to me, including repulsive and something I might want to stop. Then again if I were different I might feel different. No matter which kind of person I was the killing could be described by other criteria based on the situation such that our different natures would be exposed.
For example the killing could have been something exhibiting cowardice (sneakily delivered poison), loyalty (ordered by one's govt), intelligence (the brilliant making of an undetectable poison), and merciful (painless, perhaps pleasurable death). Though I might find intelligence and mercy admirable, I might not share such levels of loyalty or cowardice, as the killer.
Generally Justice will way heavy in moral black/white labels. Thus was the person killed for a just reason. To an amoralist it would just be lumped in with those other characteristics so as to define that person's character.
Despite claims to the contrary I would argue most people end up doing things based on their nature more often than stated moral codes of right/wrong. It is certainly more easy to understand others in that way, as well as to understand onesself.
Edited by holmes, : sneaky poison

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by U can call me Cookie, posted 11-06-2006 8:29 AM U can call me Cookie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024