The Beauty of Science

[robin]

Re: The Beauty & the horror of Science

well, considering once the baby boomer generation dies, the population will spread out much more.
Our population is going to go down, not up. Industrial nations are going to open up immigration to their cities once a large amoutn of people retire. you'll see...

They better open them wide with the average African or Asian woman having nine kids :lol:

 

[kal-el]

Public money should not be spent on anything that a significant number of the public have an ethical and moral problem with. So benefits (which are highly questionable) have nothing to do with it. Let those who believe in it be its supporters.

If everyone in the past held your position, we'd still be riding around in horse and buggy, opposed to cars.

 

[steen]

Public money should not be spent on anything that a significant number of the public have an ethical and moral problem with.

Ah, like war.

 

[conan]

If everyone in the past held your position, we'd still be riding around in horse and buggy, opposed to cars.

How so? Can you be more specific? Sources?

 

[conan]

Ah, like war.

So I take it you agree with my statement. (/)

 

[kal-el]

How so? Can you be more specific? Sources?

If the majority had these kind of medevil views, when the first type of automobile was invented, if it were put to a vote to see if we would use them or not, the majority, who knew relatively nothing about them, would vote no, so we would have never progressesd to driving cars.

All the people against the use of science are indeed hypocrites, because they benefit from science everyday without realizing it.

 

[128shot]

huh?


Considering it was all invented by 1 person and not with public money...

I don't see what you are arguing. I'm totally for stem cell research. I want to live 300 healthy years.

 

[conan]

If the majority had these kind of medevil views, when the first type of automobile was invented, if it were put to a vote to see if we would use them or not, the majority, who knew relatively nothing about them, would vote no, so we would have never progressesd to driving cars.

All the people against the use of science are indeed hypocrites, because they benefit from science everyday without realizing it.

Are you saying that federal money was used to finance the invention of the automoblie? If not, I don't see how your line of reasoning follows the argument at all.

A better analogy might be the the human experiments performed by the Nazis. From what I understand, modern science has benefited greatly from the findings of these wicked and inhumane experiments. Does the end justify the means? If so, why don't you advocate experimenting on orphans or other less fortunate classes?

I understand you don't see embryonic stem cell research as wrong. However, you can't justify your position simply by the benefits, it must be justified on its ethical and moral findings.

So why should I be forced to accept your moral judgement by supporting something that I believe is fundmentally immoral? I think the bottom line is that we must allow democracy to work. If you are right, then make some good arguments and convince me. If a mass majority would share your view, then there are plenty poll-driven law makers who act in favor of the mainstream.

You have an audience, so make your best argument the moral justification of embryonic stem cell research. Try to avoid appeals to pity and non-sequiturs, which we have heard ad nauseum from activists.

 

[nkgupta80]

A better analogy might be the the human experiments performed by the Nazis. From what I understand, modern science has benefited greatly from the findings of these wicked and inhumane experiments. Does the end justify the means? If so, why don't you advocate experimenting on orphans or other less fortunate classes?

hmm tell me how 4 years of those terrible, highly non-scientific experiments greatly helped modern science...

I understand you don't see embryonic stem cell research as wrong. However, you can't justify your position simply by the benefits, it must be justified on its ethical and moral findings.

i personally believe it isn't wrong..we're talkin about individual cells here. But Anyways, harvard recently created usable stem cells out of skin cells (or something of that nature)...one more step in solving this debate.

 

[conan]

hmm tell me how 4 years of those terrible, highly non-scientific experiments greatly helped modern science...

I can't honestly say I know. I recall hearing a liberal activist make the argument once, so it could certianly be false.

However you seem to have some knowledge of the subject. What was unscientific about the experiments themselves?

 

[nkgupta80]

they based most of their hypotheses on the notion that the Jews/other "inferior" races were biologically different from them. Other preconceived ideas would be introduced into the experiments as well. Basically, it was completely biased.

All in all, the "experiments" amounted to no more than a test of human will in the face of extreme torture...

 

[conan]

All in all, the "experiments" amounted to no more than a test of human will in the face of extreme torture...

That I generally knew, but the claim that I heard made was that the torture involved medical experimentation that provided useful data, regarless of presuppositions. Not true?

 

[steen]

So I take it you agree with my statement. (/)

No, I find it unrealistic and false. We all pay taxes for things we don't believe in and oppose.

 

[steen]

That I generally knew, but the claim that I heard made was that the torture involved medical experimentation that provided useful data, regarless of presuppositions. Not true?

The NAZI did not utilize the Scientific Method. They sought to use their experiments to justify their pre-conceived notions and beliefs. That is not science. IN FACT, it is much closer to what creationists are doing.

 

[kal-el]

I understand you don't see embryonic stem cell research as wrong. However, you can't justify your position simply by the benefits, it must be justified on its ethical and moral findings.

So why should I be forced to accept your moral judgement by supporting something that I believe is fundmentally immoral? I think the bottom line is that we must allow democracy to work. If you are right, then make some good arguments and convince me. If a mass majority would share your view, then there are plenty poll-driven law makers who act in favor of the mainstream.

All the so called "ethical" reservations about stem cells, are simply excuses whose roots come from medevil religions that want to let an imanginary"God" decide which infirmities to inflict upon an innocent child, or what good should grace its life.

 

[conan]

The NAZI did not utilize the Scientific Method. They sought to use their experiments to justify their pre-conceived notions and beliefs. That is not science. IN FACT, it is much closer to what creationists are doing.

hey steen,

That sounds too ambiguos. After a quick google I found this site.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/naziexp.html

While I don't agree ethically with the experiments in any way (that was my argument), I am not seeing how injecting someone with TB is not a scientific method.

 

[conan]

All the so called "ethical" reservations about stem cells, are simply excuses whose roots come from medevil religions that want to let an imanginary"God" decide which infirmities to inflict upon an innocent child, or what good should grace its life.

I don't see how your mere opinions and speculations about ethics, religion and what you suppose people think present any likeness of a reasoned argument. You can't win people over that way.

Why are you trying to tell me what position your opponents hold? I want to hear about your own.

 

[steen]

hey steen,

That sounds too ambiguos. After a quick google I found this site.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/naziexp.html

While I don't agree ethically with the experiments in any way (that was my argument), I am not seeing how injecting someone with TB is not a scientific method.

Actually, it was not, as there was no control, no assurance against bias of data, no control of confounding variables etc.

After all, the Scientific Method is fairly strict about data reliability, as well as all the other steps, such as independent peer review (which I didn't see mentioned anywhere).

So per SCIENCE being rather specific and the SCIENTIFIC METHOD an even more specific process, I don't see it in the provided evidence of inhumanity. So the data are unreliable and hence not of scientific value (If I remember right, that was kind of the issue, right?).

 

[kal-el]

Why are you trying to tell me what position your opponents hold? I want to hear about your own.

On what exactly?On scientific progress?

 

[teacher]

Yea science is all well and good, I throw it around like bananas in the monkey pens in the 9/11 thread. What brings me here to post is:


Kal-el. I like comic books and Smallville as much as the next sci-fi geek but, damn, you got a thing for superboy or what? You might want to see post #580 in the "top ten lists and teacher abuse" thread in the basement. I've got Pez and monkeys. You've got superboy flying, superboy looking cute, superboy looking sexy, it's pretty obvious to the rest of us. Unless you're like 12 or something, then you just haven't figured it out yet.

 

[kal-el]

Kal-el. I like comic books and Smallville as much as the next sci-fi geek but, damn, you got a thing for superboy or what? You might want to see post #580 in the "top ten lists and teacher abuse" thread in the basement. I've got Pez and monkeys. You've got superboy flying, superboy looking cute, superboy looking sexy, it's pretty obvious to the rest of us. Unless you're like 12 or something, then you just haven't figured it out yet.

:rofl , Yea, I'm not gay or anything, even though there's nothing wrong with that, I just love that show. I guess I could post some pics of Lana from that show, but then again, I really don't care what anyone thinks of me.

 

[128shot]

My arguement that stem cell research would be ethical by the majority stem from these two arguements.

Stem cells can be made from skin cells, and liver cells, and I guess there are parts of the nose too.


So you don't have to take them from dead babys in order to reap the benefits of such research.


So where is the problem? I think certain people manipulate the presentation of the research to say its bad.

 

[kal-el]

My arguement that stem cell research would be ethical by the majority stem from these two arguements.

Stem cells can be made from skin cells, and liver cells, and I guess there are parts of the nose too.


So you don't have to take them from dead babys in order to reap the benefits of such research.


So where is the problem? I think certain people manipulate the presentation of the research to say its bad.

Of course, IMO "ethics" is just a last-ditch effort to keep us living in the dark ages.

 

[steen]

My arguement that stem cell research would be ethical by the majority stem from these two arguements.

Stem cells can be made from skin cells, and liver cells, and I guess there are parts of the nose too.

But we still have not found a way to make these pluropotential.

So you don't have to take them from dead babys in order to reap the benefits of such research.

But then, no stemcells are ever taken from dead babies anyway, so your point doesn't really make sense.

So where is the problem? I think certain people manipulate the presentation of the research to say its bad.

The one's whose political agenda benefits from such, yes.

 

[128shot]

erm, everyone has "ethics" fundamentally and "morales" too,

Of course, they're not totally universal or drived from the same source.