/sci/ - Science & Math

There are limits to the sort of experiments one can ethically perform, but no conceptual limits to the amount of knowledge one could acquire using science. (Doing the second without the first may be problematic, however.)

There is no price for science!
There is no moral limit for science!
There is no legal limit for science!

Fuck you!

The only limits to science should be those things that the researcher lacks the constitution to accomplish. Ethics are the excuses of the inadequate to hide their own shortcomings.

>>2040291
I would like to introduce transgenic humans in population

I think we've already crossed the limit by inventing nuclear weapons.

Yes there should be a limit to science
When it puts the entire fucking world in jeopardy like the LHC is doing by fucking trying to make fucking STRANGELETS!

fuck ethics. Science should not have to answer to these subjective opinions

OP here. Friendly bump, I approve of no limits and unethical experiments.

>>2040346
http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/

>>2040346
You do realize that cosmic rays enter our atmo with far more energy than the collisions at the LHC, right? If those particles were going to make a strangelet the our planet would be long gone.

when on earth, yes.

when speaking of destroying it, yes

fucking strangelets, god damn it.

>>2040304
>>2040318
>>2040380
There has to be legal limits to science. Otherwise any illegal behavior can be excused as conducting an experiment. Torturing babies should be illegal. Getting people addicted to drugs against their will should be illegal. Building things that can destroy the planed should be illegal.

yes I mad, but I also right

Most sciences do fine policing themselves, so I believe no legislative limits outside of the regular legal limits imposed on society should be enacted.

>>2040291
Here's a real-life example. The Nazis put people into ice water and measured how long it took them to tread water and drown. Later when the US Navy was doing research on the survival of pilots that ditched into the icy waters of the North Atlantic, they looked at this research, but there was such a hew and cry that the Nazi data was sealed. Was it wrong that the Nazi data, well-organized and annotated, run scientifically, was excluded? Does it dishonor the victims more if the data is used, or if their deaths are now completely meaningless? Discuss.

nothing, if we want to secure our future we need to have no limits, look at the dark ages. I want the future to be a shining beacon.

>>2041299
We certainly shouldn't leap before we look, at least as often as we can; but in short I agree with the above.

>>2041286
1: there is data
2: use it
3: ?
4: pripyet!

>>2041304
so you wouldn't be opposed to chemical engineering, like somthing not dissimmilare to the matrix, were we use enginered fetuses for thermal energy?

i wouldnt at all

>>2041319
Personally, I think it's perfectly acceptable to breed things specifically for science. No test subjects taken off the street, or babies signed up against the parents will.

But pure test-tube babies bred en masse to conduct experiments on.

>>2040291
name of the graphis girl?

i think the line should be drawn at causing suffering

science to me is about reducing suffering

thats my opinion

>>2041338

i love this board

>>2041286

Its a little hypocritical that we use other nazi developments often (most potent neurotoxins tested and stockpiled after the war were of german creation), but blew the shit over the ice study.

Should the study be condemned? Definitely, it was immoral, illegal, and unethical. Was it good science? Debatable, there are many reasons to doubt their results, many people take issue with their methods as well as their ethics. If it was good science should we ignore the results? No.

Science can find out what IS. Without any ethical or legal limits it may do so faster, but either way it will do so eventually.

You can't get from an IS to an OUGHT. So the discussion of what is to be permitted ethically and morally is separate from the normal function of science.

There is nothing wrong with testing the limits of science, and so there is nothing wrong with testing the limits of ethics. If an argument can be made to allow something that was considered immoral, or to disallow something that was once considered moral, such argument can be brought forward and considered on it's merits. People get confused when this intersects with science, so that they think that we are giving up ethics for science. In fact it is only because the benefits of science are so obvious and indisputable, with no drawbacks, while a changing view of ethics inevitably leaves many who cling to obsolete ethics believing that the current zeitgeist is unethical or immoral, that it can be difficult for these people to look at the problem in any way other than a kind of Faustian pact.

>>2041319
That's a really poor energy source.

>>2041382

But delicious.

>>2041384
Hehe.

It'd be nice if no one destroyed our planet.

People shouldn't be allowed to call certain things science. Creation science? Fuck no. Alternative medical science? Fuck no. Real scientists should be allowed to punch these people in the face. Or maybe use them to test how long a person can stay afloat in icy water. Either way.

No, only legal limits on the application of science and technology. If no one is hurt in the process of research, then it should be legal. Such as cloning. For example : no one is hurt when you attempt to make a clone, there is no reason to make it illegal. Human dignity is an illusion. I think it would be a demonstration of our sophistication if we can create ourselves; Then we are truly masters of ourselves. I think that would make humans much more dignified than a bunch of cowards who are afraid their image (in the face of what? who knows) will be hurt.

I honestly don't see any need for any legal limits on science. We already have laws against fraud, assault, murder, and so on, so anything untoward a scientist could do to a subject in pursuit of an experiment would be covered under those.