Science!

**Marie Monday** · 08-30-2019, 06:46 AM

Interesting. Why would you be against it? I think that the applications of discoveries should not really be a scientist's responsibility, and this pledge might get into the way of scientific progress. However, awareness of possible scientific consequences is important. There are probably better ways to deal with that: more courses in ethics and science-related philosophy might be a good idea

OccultHawk · 08-30-2019, 08:14 AM

Science is not neutral.

The Batlord · 08-30-2019, 09:13 AM

Then go throw your phone in a river and live in a cave.

OccultHawk · 08-30-2019, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug McClasky

Then go throw your phone in a river and live in a cave.

Shut up you disgusting tub of lard.

The Batlord · 08-30-2019, 09:40 AM

You don't sound very neutral, science boy.

OccultHawk · 08-30-2019, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug McClasky

You don't sound very neutral, science boy.

Cuck

The Batlord · 08-30-2019, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

You dis yourself using the term “cuck” which is officially in the Lexicon of Losers

.

OccultHawk · 08-30-2019, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug McClasky

.

Church

Pet_Sounds · 08-31-2019, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarieMarie

Interesting. Why would you be against it? I think that the applications of discoveries should not really be a scientist's responsibility, and this pledge might get into the way of scientific progress. However, awareness of possible scientific consequences is important. There are probably better ways to deal with that: more courses in ethics and science-related philosophy might be a good idea

For those reasons basically. Much of math is so far removed from applications that it makes no sense to hold mathematicians accountable for the consequences of their work, which may be realized decades after their deaths. The same goes for a lot of scientific research, imo.

Similarly, I wouldn't want writers to be required to take a pledge holding them responsible for the effects of their books. In general I feel that human interest is best served by letting the theoreticians proceed unfettered and holding the people who actually build things responsible for the consequences.

The thrust of the article seems to be aimed at computer scientists (whom it mistakenly labels as "computer engineers"). I guess we could make some sort of ethics training mandatory as part of a programmer's first week on the job. It's already required in most degree programs though.

Also, engineers (at least in North America) already have their own version of the Hippocratic Oath.

**Marie Monday** · 08-31-2019, 09:35 AM

^I agree.

My ethics training during my studies was mainly just 'fraud is bad, mkay'. It wasn't really required to learn anything else about ethics or science-related philosophy, which I find a bit strange.

08-30-2019, 08:14 AM	#532 (permalink)
OccultHawk one-balled nipple jockey Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dirty Souf Biatch Posts: 22,006	Science is not neutral. __________________ 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND: https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html