Are Scientists Less Moral or Honest than Non-scientists?

The losers end up in Iraq then?

Perhaps they understand the pressures you will be under not to be.I certainly wouldn't like to be the scientist working in a pharmceutical company whose research, late in development proceedings led them to suppose there might be some undesirable, if very rare side-effects for the takers of the latest wonder drug. The possiblilty of being the one to scupper millions of $ worth of development time would be a true test of honesty.Lawyers, politicians, journalists are not held to be the most untrustworthy of the publically observable educated classes for nothing. They all have goals to be met. They all operate in situations where 'ethics' is driven home as a priority.As do scientists.My girlfriend was put to work during her college years in psychology on research her professor was carrying out to establish some notion or other. He had a theory. Her research brought out information that seemed to act counter to the notion. It was buried.Scientists are people first, scientists second. Just like everyone else. The level of dishonesty would be a function of the pressures there are to be dishonest I imagine. No more, no less.

Being a loser means one is more likely to be immoral? Being educated means one is a moral person? I would have thought that all education will do is increase your ability to be immoral and get away with it.You said the same thing as Kerry in effect. I just finished it off for you. I ended the statement with a question mark - I was wondering if you were drawing the same conclusions he was. It wasn't a sweeping generalisation about all scientists. Nor all laywers, politicians and journalists. Sidelineds Richard Feynman piece demonstrates the same thing as I was saying: the need to get a results can influence against ones being totally honest. His was an appeal to remain honest in the face of the pressures tending one not to be. How much dishonestly exists in science cannot be established. Being "Alert" says very little unless you have a) an idea of the total amount of dishonesty and b) how much of that dishonesty is brought to light. That dishonesty is brought to light simply means there is dishonesty. It doesn't comment on the amount of it. Fair enough. We both know dishonesty occurs in science. That example may or may not have occurred.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Actually, I initially thought you were joking when you said what you said. Then I realised you weren't.I'm not sure why Kerry said what he said but I suppose he didn't really intend to imply that Iraq was filled with uneducated Americans. And I must suppose you didn't really intend to say that it will be the moral who will tend to rise to the professional classes.But it sure sounds like thats what you said: It sure does read as though you are saying that losers equates to moral inferiority. And that education is the filter which will tend to eliminate the morally inferior leaving the morally superior to occupy the professional classes.I would have thought that lack of intellect, finance, opportunity, ambition, interest, etc.,etc. would work to keep people from occupying the professional classes. Not moral inferiority. Indeed I can't see why immorality/amorality should prevent someone occupying the professional classes when that very characteristic would be useful ones effort to climb to the very top of said class.In querying whether your 'losers' should be sent to Iraq I was filling in the second half of your logic. The parallel logic which Kerry (unintentionally, I reckon) drew. I suppose you didn't intend it as it came out. I least I hope you didn't.It was a joke of sorts. But aimed at your (presumably unintended) gaff - not Kerrys

And I am not trying to paint them as devils. Maybe I should have said as much at outset.I suppose 'losers' as now defined them make up a tiny proportion of all people. The patently 'immoral' by virtue of having been caught or having had the cops call around only to hear the wife tell them (whilst nervously looking at her husband) that the black eye is the result of walking into a door. Trailer Trash is the (objectionable) term I believe.Your main conviction as to the morality of scientists (and other professional classes) is thus: trailer trash is not represented amongst them. I don't want to hound you on this NWR. I would just ask that you appreciate my taking issue with this if it is indeed the 'main' reason you had for supposing scientists as moral. Both you and I might agree that there will be scientists wives who walk into doors too.Lets leave John Kerry and those brave men and women in Iraq in peace (whatever the wisdom or otherwise of the men and women who sent them there)I'll come back on the rest of your post later. This corrupting influence I'd like to look at more.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Problem:When you exlude the "losers" all the non-loser population rises - not just the educated classes you referred to. There is no more reason to suppose the burger flipper as any less moral than the scientist.The scientist is more moral than the loser is all you've said (which I assume you take to mean a tiny fraction of the population) The only way this works is is the population at large are in some manner or form, losers.What makes the uneducated burger flipper more a loser than the scientist?Edited by iano, : No reason given.