Forums / General Discussion Forums / Ad Infinitum / True/False vs. Good/Bad
True/False vs. Good/Bad
In the last week I have read 2 different articles that mentioned the principle that "science is amoral." Strangely enough neither one had anything to do with astronomy - one was about human cloning and the other had to do with military interrogation techniques. This is a principle that was never really discussed when I was in school so it certainly gave me something to think about.
First, to straighten out the definitions... I think that some tend to confuse the terms amoral and immoral. If moral means conforming to what your society generally considers to be right and good, then immoral would be to have morals that run against that society. Amoral is simply without morals altogether.
Science is the seeking of facts. We employ the scientific method in order to discern these facts as objectively as possible. Science operates in the realm of true and false - good and bad don't enter into the equation.
While is it true that science itself is amoral, morals certainly come into play at some point. I for one don't see how science (amoral as it is) can be effectively practiced by a scientist who is not moral. The practice of being diligent and reporting truthful results (whether a big discovery or a negative result) requires a certain level of morals. If scientists were always faking impressive results to get published we'd never have a foundation of knowledge to build upon.
What we do with the amoral truths uncovered by science are also subject to the moral judgement of ethics boards and even society as a whole. I think that this is one of the reasons why it is so important for the members our society to be exposed to the workings of science. Since there is no morality built into science it is up to us to apply science in a way that fits with our societies morals. If the members of that society are scientifically literate, they can vote, serve on boards, or protest from an informed position as opposed to a position of ignorance.
Thoughts?
In general I agree that science is (and should be in a certain way) amoral in the sense that science should try to think in terms of true and false. Having said that, science doesn't exist in a social vacuum, and all to often scientists have used this argument to strip themselves off any responsibility whatsoever for the outcome of their research, or the effects their research will have on others. The true/false results , theories, laws of nature that come out of the scientific process are not the problem in my opinion. More often, it's a) the often foreseeable way that those results will be used and b) the means by which the results are gained. The physicists in the 30s (on whetver side) who realized that nuclear fission had the potential of a powerful new weapon had to make a moral choice in my view: whether to continue their research, or even ask their respective government to expedite the research, or whether to stop the research so it would not fall into the wrong hands. To argue "hey, I'm just a physicist doing 'pure' science, it's up to the politicians to decide how to use it" would not fit my sense of morality. If you make the choice, it's your moral obligation to consider the consequences. As for the means by which scientific results are made, the answer is much clearer, I think: Of course the scientist has a responsibility to act morally to ensure that his research doesn't harm others in an immoral way: does my experiment mess up the environment? Are those guys that are participating in my clinical study really volunteers, or were they forced into this? Do they understand the risks involved in that study? Could this interplanetary mission that I helped to design contaminate the planet, and would that be morally acceptable? CS HB