| Pages:
1
2
3 |
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Bot0nist  | IRC, thanks. I wasn't implying that you were making outlandish claims and demanding source. I was just very interested in some of the information you
provided and was curious if you had more on hand. I am not prone to flights of fancy or conspiracy theories, but the tampering with of plagues could
have some serious realistic implications.
As a side note, both me and my brother where hospitalized in the mid 1990s with influenza. Worst experience if our lives. I really thought we would
die. |
I did not take your question that way, to me it sounded like honest interest. After I replied to you AH posted a link and later deleted the post. That
was the reason for my 2nd post after my reply to you. Actually AH had made an interesting point in that post. Somehow I do not doubt if not now then
eventually someone will do work along the lines he mentioned. The 57 flu nearly killed me. I did my first grade year from either the hospital or home
as many complications set in which kept me down for 10 months. Every week night my teacher brought my homework and this kept me from being set back a
year in grade. My 2nd bad bout was the 1977 flu. 3rd was 1994. There were many others in between but those three were the ones I remember the most. Or
the worst.
I think Rosco has a point the world would be less dangerous if more people had a conscience and worried about the consequences of their actions.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
gregxy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
About 10 years ago researchers in Australia created
a genetically altered mouse pox virus that was 90%
lethal and unable to be controlled by vaccination.
There were concerns that the technique could be used
to make bio weapons.
Here is an excellent interview with the researchers involved
and their opinions on the ethics:
http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v11/n1/full/embor2009270...
[Edited on 21-12-2011 by gregxy]
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
| Quote: | | and those who do not believe they have a soul to lose will sell cheaply that in which they place no value. |
Oh no you didn't. That's like saying that atheists are more likely to be immoral. GIVE ME SOME EVIDENCE FOR THIS OR QUIT SPOUTING IT. And for god's
sake don't bring up Stalin because the argument is flawed before it even begins to not make sense.
Also, do you closely adhere to all moral teachings in the Bible? If you do than I can say, with near certainty, that you are a reprehensible person
by today's moral standards. If you arbitrarily select which moral tenets in the Bible to adhere to or select them based on personal taste, how the
hell is that any different from just not using the Bible at all? It's like the difference between randomly selecting numbers from a list and just
making them up. You get the same results (except perhaps you may be limited by the finite properties of any list) but you don't have to wade through
the other BS on the way.
And how do you explain the fact that most of us, in fact, don't get most of our morals from the Bible? If we did, well, you know what's in there.
How do you know what's in there and still ... Oh, some are just metaphorical. Well what standard do you use to determine which are metaphorical and
which are to be taken literally?
I think your zealotry blinds you to what is most likely true: morals come from OUR BRAINS and our collective, social consciousness which comes from
millions of years of evolution. Our morals change constantly and many societies change regardless of the Bible or any piece of mythology. GIVE ME
ONE PIECE OF GOOD EVIDENCE THAT PROVES OTHERWISE. Do it, please. I like refuting such things. It's easy. Furthermore, it is the antithesis of
scientific/rationality to keep spouting things as if they are absolutely true and to offer no way for any one to ever prove them wrong. I don't think
such "invincible" arguments or assertions are at home on a forum such as this.
I took a little breather and still decided to go ahead and post this. Why? Because it's WRONG to let such statements go unchallenged. Look, I'm
sorry for posting this off-topic stuff but I can't just let this claim be made without arguing against it. I really don't want a confrontation but I
can't let such hogwash with no basis in reality be regurgitated without any resistance as if it were something that was independently verifiable, no
matter how subtle and cloaked in sincerity and good intentions it is.
Rosco does say more ... "religious" (to put it nicely) things, I know. But a lot of those I can live with. This most recent assertion I cannot.
You'll get no complaint from me if this is deleted... for the right reasons, of course.
[Edited on 12-22-2011 by MagicJigPipe]
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
What I see is not blindness. And what I said is not untruth. It simply bothers you that at Christmas time any Christian should point to the certain
moral authority of Jesus Christ, because that truth challenges what you have decided is the supremacy instead of Jesus Christ, the utter nihilism of
secular atheist philosophy where the real untruth, darkness, and hopelessness of a lost world is found.
I choose and decide instead to believe The Truth, The Light, and The Way.
Merry Christmas
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | | What I see is not blindness. |
What I see is religion being again dragged into an arena that should be free of this silliness . . .
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
- MJP, your sig. says it all - never has a thread been so complemented by a few well-chosen words . . . ?
It should be committed to memory by everyone here!
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise | - MJP, your sig. says it all - never has a thread been so complemented by a few well-chosen words . . . ?
It should be committed to memory by everyone here!
|
I assume you mean:
""There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer"
Yet nowhere in those words do I see "free to create all the mass death and destruction as or hearts desire".
To me this is where 'morals' comes into the picture. To weigh in the balance risk VS gain. One of the leading authorities in the field of
biotechnology has stated a vaccine to a virus can be developed without the need to alter the virus to make it spread more easily. This eliminates the
'we can better create cures' defense. Add to that the designers haste to publish the results and procedures for this terrible invention knowing there
is as yet no cure and the mortality rate is 59 percent. I defy anyone to defend the actions of this person (or group).
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | | Yet nowhere in those words do I see "free to create all the mass death and destruction as or hearts desire". |
Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses
nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.
THOMAS HUXLEY (1825-1895)
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
This is a very interesting discussion.
There has been a great deal of material written on medical ethics, however science in general has such a broad base that it may be vital to weigh the
potential benefit vs risk on a very individuated basis.
I feel strongly about my community, my neighbors, my family, etc. Speaking only for myself, I can find some clarity when I view experimentation in the
light of it's impact on others. What concerns me is censorship. Yet making available information, puts a wider scope on a discussion of ethics as it
permits the individual to discern his own ethical agenda.
We could examine each situation individually but what happens when an individual has a substantially different "moral compass"? Mary Shelly's
"Frankenstein" was a novel that illustrated this to a limited extent.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Quoting hissingnoise :
"Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature
leads, or you shall learn nothing.
THOMAS HUXLEY (1825-1895)"
His words are without knowledge when it comes to the subject of science today. I point out not only is he dead, he also did not have the benefit of
the last 117 years worth of information (since he died, longer since he wrote that). He could not have conceived of pushing a button in one location
and wiping out half a billion somewhere else on the other side of the planet. He did not know nor could conceive of missiles coming in from orbit
carrying nukes or bioweapons. He never saw WWI, WWII, the soon to be announced WWIII, and so on. So really how much wisdom in his pre 1900 words is of
value today?
I should add: When he said "follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads" he did not say "follow humbly wherever and to whatever
abysses madmen take you". I think the difference is critical and I think it is being overlooked.
[Edited on 12-22-2011 by IrC]
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
The meaning of the word "abyss" is the same now as it was then, and why substitute "madmen" for "nature" - psychiatry is the science concerned there .
. .
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
He was talking about the study of science as found in nature. Or in effect to study nature no matter how dangerous if one wished to discover new
truths. He did not say study weapons of mass destruction designed by men. You are trying to equate one with the other and this does not fly. In my
opinion only a madman will weaponize a virus. Make it more deadly and spread more easily. I do not care what the motivation is. Nor do I think there
is any justification possible.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The subject of how ethics relates to scientists is an interesting one, for a different reason.
Scientists tend to be much more idealistic than the typical person. But they also are more likely to be anti-social and completely absorbed into their
work.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
When a miracle is what is needed, looking beyond science and philosophy for a supplier of what is needed is not unreasonable or irrational. Maybe the
world is like a stage for a drama being acted out by players on the stage, a kind of Kabuki theater for the entertainment of the almighty. The
antagonists are those apple polishing servants of the talking snake who tempts naked wives of men while the husband is away, and the protagonists are
those hymn singing, bible toting and scripture believing disciples of that divine personage who walks on water and raises the dead to life again. In
the final analysis maybe who it is that are the rational actors, are those who don't have to discover and rediscover continually
that stop drop and roll doesn't work in hell.
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | | Nor do I think there is any justification possible. |
Just as well then that science needs no justification beyond itself . . .
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
This is one of the reasons why science is so dangerous. It takes on a life of its own, for its own ends, frequently with no regard for human
well-being. I am not arguing for attempts to curtail this- I think it is inevitible.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise | | Quote: | | Nor do I think there is any justification possible. |
Just as well then that science needs no justification beyond itself . . .
|
All I can say is the argument with your view is pointless. If science is an entity which can provide self justification, I would ask who is this
entity which has no moral compass to decide no end is required for the misery and death it produces. Or for the potential to create the same. As long
as evil people exist I see no reason to provide them the tools to amplify their nature. One mans opinion for what it's worth.
I see this in the perspective of typically the young who have not suffered enough nor seen enough suffering. I do not think the Kurds who had nerve
agents and various and sundry other chemical weapons dropped on them by Saddam would hold such a liberal view on 'science with no holds barred'. To
name one example of many. Perhaps in 50 years assuming people still exist your perspective will have changed.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by IrC | He was talking about the study of science as found in nature. Or in effect to study nature no matter how dangerous if one wished to discover new
truths. He did not say study weapons of mass destruction designed by men. You are trying to equate one with the other and this does not fly. In my
opinion only a madman will weaponize a virus. Make it more deadly and spread more easily. I do not care what the motivation is. Nor do I think there
is any justification possible.
|
Here is an example of tough twist. We have learned much of the human genome. What if we reached a fork in the road where the research could be used to
help mankind or create something terrible. Should we abandon the research because of the potential for misuse? How would we decide whether the risk is
too great (or out-weighs the benefit)? Who would arbitrate: the scientist(s) or the public?
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
I would say the innocent most at risk, and those most able to judge. This eliminates all politicians right off the bat.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
For science, the elephant in the room is nuclear energy, as in controlled chain reaction where nuclear fuel is used for power generation rather than
for weapons. If nuclear energy had been pursued in development of its potential for safely producing cheap power and synthetic fuels ......instead of
nuclear energy technology having been primarily pursued for weapons development......wouldn't the world be a better place today for everyone? Human
nature caused a different set of priorities to apply so the more noble purpose of nuclear science was largely subverted. Keeping warm the good guys
was a lower priority than burning up the bad guys. A price already has been paid for the human version of wisdom which has been applied to many
scenarios and certainly there is more cost to yet be paid. Errors are generally costly when dealing with weighty matters.
|
|
|
Bot0nist
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 15-2-2011
Location: Right behind you.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Streching my cotyledons.
|
|
Agree in this matter, very wise words Rosco. Perhaps mankind wasn't ready for nuclear fission just yet. Years of evolution taught us to take advantage
of every resource and eliminate opposition with force. In this case we almost eliminated our collective civilizations with a power that could sustain
us for eons and escort us into the heavens.
[Edited on 23-12-2011 by Bot0nist]
U.T.F.S.E. and learn the joys of autodidacticism!
Don't judge each day only by the harvest you reap, but also by the seeds you sow.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Something that is sure to stick firmly in the Darwinian craw is the historical account of at least some ancient humans having natural lifespans of
many centuries duration. And for those who dismiss that as being simply Hebrew legend, the same curious report of unusal longevity of some ancient
humans is not exclusively a biblical source. I haven't really looked into this lately, but it does represent an exception or anomaly that would seem
to somewhat throw a wrench
into the premise that evolution / devolution are somehow predictable and it would seem certainly that natural selection is in flux, not just governed
by environmental stressors .....but also greatly influenced by pure chance, or
perhaps in some cases by design. Genetic engineering by selective breeding has been going on for millennia before anyone even knew what a gene was.
[Edited on 23-12-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | | If science is an entity which can provide self justification, I would ask who is this entity which has no moral compass to decide no end is required
for the misery and death it produces. |
-IrC, if science were to be subject to plebeian approval, there would be none, or very little, of the great technological advances we take for
granted.
Attitudes like yours, if acted upon, would propel humanity back to the 'stoneage' in pretty short order.
I mean, the idea of picking and choosing only avenues of inquiry that are morally acceptable to non-scientists is plainly ridiculous!
If you can't see that, you're not thinking hard enough . . .
And I can't believe you equate science with misery and death!
Those things are purely the product of human frailty - nothing whatever to do with science!
|
|
|
Ephoton
Hazard to Others
Posts: 463
Registered: 21-7-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: trying to figure out why I need a dark room retreat when I live in a forest of wattle.
|
|
there is also another simple explanation for what you describe rosco.
qigong but na thats like witch craft mixed with fitness.
there are many ways to many places.
the main thing is that we have choices of our own and that we each support each other in those
choices if they do not hurt others.
unfortunatly a lot of us can not agree in what is hurting others so we still even in this scientific arena
have differences of opinion.
e3500 console login: root
bash-2.05#
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise | | Quote: | | If science is an entity which can provide self justification, I would ask who is this entity which has no moral compass to decide no end is required
for the misery and death it produces. |
-IrC, if science were to be subject to plebeian approval, there would be none, or very little, of the great technological advances we take for
granted.
Attitudes like yours, if acted upon, would propel humanity back to the 'stoneage' in pretty short order.
I mean, the idea of picking and choosing only avenues of inquiry that are morally acceptable to non-scientists is plainly ridiculous!
If you can't see that, you're not thinking hard enough . . .
And I can't believe you equate science with misery and death!
Those things are purely the product of human frailty - nothing whatever to do with science! |
Clearly you only understand in blind extremes. These words are gibberish without reason. How do you arrive at the extreme that my attitude would land
us in the stone age using my words as your data. Many times on this board I have proclaimed we need to build more reactors to do away with coal fired
generation of power. Just exactly how many nuclear reactors did the caveman build if we are to believe your conclusions. Science is my life. But to
spend more time in a fools debate would only make me one. My thread started with the point that we should not weaponize the flu. You conclude I am
saying we should have no science at all. You are simply incapable of seeing things in any other form than extremes. I am quite certain my science is
far more advanced than yours. To discover what level of understanding you have achieved explain why Styrofoam is an important component in a multi
stage radiation implosion device of Teller-Ulam design.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
