11 Mar 13
6 edits
Ok maybe i lost that one, but if maths students should learn a bit about ethics... I was crap at my degree I'm not posting as someone with any deep understanding... But i realise people studying science just don't have the time to put much thought into essays on ethics ... but writing 1 or 2 wouldn't hurt, they might even like it...
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziNothing is wrong with it. However it strongly suggests that religion is not actually your source of morals. In fact, religion highly discourages filtering.
what is the problem with filtering out some things you think do not apply to you?
this is incorrect. no place in the bible does jesus tell people to follow immoral rules.
I said nothing whatsoever about what Jesus says in the Bible. If you think 'religion' is equivalent to 'what Jesus says in the Bible' then you are sadly mistaken.
in fact he intervenes several times when outdated laws are applied like in the stoning of the adulteress, like when the pharisees asked him why he is healing people on the Sabbath, and so on.
And to a large extent he totally fails to speak out against almost all the immoral things that go on around him. He doesn't even say that stoning the adulteress is wrong. He doesn't even challenge the question of whether adultery is wrong or whether or not the man is equally guilty.
As for healing on the Sabbath, he is actually fighting against a religious rule that has been preached as 'morality'.
your mistake is that while you don't get your morality just from a person, or a philosophical system, that while you are capable of deciding for yourself if something X said is morally wrong or right, you don't believe christians are capable of doing just that.
I believe Christians are less capable of doing just that because they are constrained by their religions.
there are christians and muslims that don't adhere to the ideas that women should be subservient to men, that gays will be going to hell and so on. does that make them less christian/muslim? no. who decided that believing in a global flood is integral to being a christian?
I am perfectly well aware that most theists do not follow all the morals taught by their religions. As you said, they are remarkably good at picking and choosing. My concern is the amount of times they pick wrong.
no, because being a christian doesn't mean i am a drone, unable to think for myself. regardless of what your opinion is of christians/muslims/jews. no christian is required to adhere to every rule from every sect/cult ever created. you obey each of those rules or not, as your conscience dictates.
Yet many of the rules that most Christians follow are clearly immoral ones. The fact that you may have chosen correctly and avoided all those immoral rules is a sign that you have resisted religion, not that you are the norm. And yes, most theists are drones.
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadok, let's simplify this discussion. what is your source of morality? remember, you can only give me one.
Nothing is wrong with it. However it strongly suggests that religion is not actually your source of morals. In fact, religion highly discourages filtering.
[b]this is incorrect. no place in the bible does jesus tell people to follow immoral rules.
I said nothing whatsoever about what Jesus says in the Bible. If you think 'religion' is equivalent ...[text shortened]... have resisted religion, not that you are the norm. And yes, most theists are drones.[/b]
sounds insane, right? you can't. because nobody has all the answers. so you will mention a number of sources, depending on how many elements shaped you into who you are today.
getting back to me, you are either saying i don't have the same freedom as you to get my knowledge or morality from more than one source, or that i am less religious or not at all, for daring to take moral advice from anyone not official spokesperson for the christian faith. that is equally absurd.
Originally posted by e4chriswhy would people studying science be any more likely to lack ethics than anyone else? -if no reason, then why should a person studying science also write about ethics but, say, a person studying cookery not write about ethics? -a careless immoral cook can cause food poisoning. Or what about a person who is taking car driving lessons? -a careless immoral driver can kill on the road so why not insist that people taking car driving tests should write essays on ethics and have the essays marked as part of the driving test?
Ok maybe i lost that one, but if maths students should learn a bit about ethics... I was crap at my degree I'm not posting as someone with any deep understanding... But i realise people studying science just don't have the time to put much thought into essays on ethics ... but writing 1 or 2 wouldn't hurt, they might even like it...
-I think you must surely get my point here; why pick on those studying science in particular? -especially as it is the politicians that are nearly always the ones that actually authorize (and 'authorize' is the operative word here!) mass murder and other atrocities and NOT the scientists! Some scientists have done some evil things by taking orders from evil people -but many more none-scientists have done some evil things by taking orders from evil people (remember, for example, most Nazis and their followers were NOT scientists and scientists made up a tiny minority). Actually, most scientists are intelligent enough to not take orders from evil people (I can name many) and statistics show, unsurprisingly, none-scientists are more likely to commit crime and act immorally than most scientists. So, if anything, it would be Non-scientists that need to learn about ethics!
Also, how on earth would being made to putting thought into writing an essay about ethics make a person more moral? -most people, except those wanting to study ethics in particular or just happen to find the subject of some personal interest, would just find it extremely boring and irrelevant and thus would learn nothing from it.
-no point in punishing people by being preachy ramming ethics down their throat by make them waste their time with a pointless boring exercise that no normal sane person would want to do.
Morality cannot be gained from just writing about it!
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziI wasn't saying that mathematicians in general fostered eugenics, just pointing out that the notion that mathematicians are relatively harmless compared to scientists is silly. Especially when the person I was replying to had already used eugenics and Fisher as an example in another thread! Pearson was a loony, not so sure about Fisher though.
you are wrong. that was not fostered by mathematicians. it was fostered by loonies who happened to be mathematicians.
no fancy math is involved in the wacky idea of "hmm, let's start killing/neutering people we don't deem worthy to reproduce".
12 Mar 13
5 edits
It said on the news tonight, and there a thread in debates about it, that there hasn't been any new antibiotics developed in 25 years! people and i think investors have this perception of drugs companies fighting disease... yet not one (according to the itv news) in 25 years. Also re ethics, a lot of science graduates go into business and make such decisions... maybe its just a loony story....
twhitehead / humy - if you had to write a short course on ethics for science students. any idea what you would include? i think dioxin , have mentioned it enough might be one subject - you have industry, agent orange but also a campaign to wipe out malaria...any ideas?
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziI do not think morality can have a 'source'. I believe morality is actually very simple, involving compassion and a few basic rules. I actually find it strange that so many people try to complicate it.
ok, let's simplify this discussion. what is your source of morality? remember, you can only give me one.
sounds insane, right? you can't. because nobody has all the answers. so you will mention a number of sources, depending on how many elements shaped you into who you are today.
Ah, so you are not talking about my source of morality, but why I choose to act morally. Not the same thing at all. I think this is also where you are getting confused with regards to religion. I would agree that Christianity, for many people, is a source of encouragement to act morally. However, the problem is, it teaches them that some things are moral when they are not, and focuses too heavily on other things that have nothing to do with morality - like evangelism.
getting back to me, you are either saying i don't have the same freedom as you to get my knowledge or morality from more than one source, or that i am less religious or not at all, for daring to take moral advice from anyone not official spokesperson for the christian faith. that is equally absurd.
I think we both know that you are a lot less religious than the average Christian we see on these forums. I think we also both know that there are many religious extremists acting very immorally because religion has twisted their sense of morality.
12 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by e4chrisAntibiotics come in classes. They haven't found a new class of antibiotics in a while.
It said on the news tonight, and there a thread in debates about it, that there hasn't been any new antibiotics developed in 25 years! people and i think investors have this perception of drugs companies fighting disease... yet not one (according to the itv news) in 25 years.
But this does not mean that doctors/medical industry are not fighting disease. In fact, antibiotics have been so successful that 99% of diseases caused by bacteria re curable with current antibiotics. The vast majority of diseases that are untreatable or difficult to treat today are not caused by bacteria. (cancer, virus',genetic diseases, problems that come with age, obesity)
twhitehead / humy - if you had to write a short course on ethics for science students. any idea what you would include? i think dioxin , have mentioned it enough might be one subject - you have industry, agent orange but also a campaign to wipe out malaria...any ideas?
I don't think it would be important to pick a list of particularly nasty things people have done. There could be a different list for each course. I think it would be more important to get people to think about ethics and also understand it a bit better - for a start, people need to understand that religion is not equivalent to ethics.
12 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by e4chrisread my last post to you. Try and work out if you have any answers to my 5 questions and come back to me.
It said on the news tonight, and there a thread in debates about it, that there hasn't been any new antibiotics developed in 25 years! people and i think investors have this perception of drugs companies fighting disease... yet not one (according to the itv news) in 25 years. Also re ethics, a lot of science graduates go into business and make such decisions ...[text shortened]... subject - you have industry, agent orange but also a campaign to wipe out malaria...any ideas?
12 Mar 13
3 edits
Originally posted by humyRegarding your last post. People who study science need ethics because of what they are capable off. A point i was trying to make lightly with sheldon and less lightly with haber. You can do great evil as a scientist and in a detatched way where you can't always see it.
read my last post to you. Try and work out if you have any answers to my 5 questions and come back to me.
I am not saying that scientists have bad morals not at all, if you study medicine you study ethics, that doesn't mean Drs have bad morals, just they might need to think about it in there job. It should be the same for scientists.
Your 'its boring' attitude reminds me of a time when i worked for this company and they wanted me to do a personality test. Its pointless i said , i'm busy, why waste time with that? but when they forced me too, it was actualy very insightful. I think a lot of science students would find that with an appropraite course on ethics.
12 Mar 13
7 edits
Originally posted by e4chrisYou have totally failed to properly address my 5 questions and you are just so totally wrong about all of that.
Regarding your last post. People who study science need ethics because of what they are capable off. A point i was trying to make lightly with sheldon and less lightly with haber. You can do great evil as a scientist and in a detatched way where you can't always see it.
I am not saying that scientists have bad morals not at all, if you study medicine you ul. I think a lot of science students would find that with an appropraite course on ethics.
You got some very strange ideas in your head and I cannot imagine where you got them from.
The average scientists have no more opportunity for evil harm than a non-scientist and forcing people to do totally irrelevant essays on ethics when they obviously don't need a lecture on their ethics, whether they are doing science courses or not, is a total waste of time. And, as I already said, :
"it is the politicians that are nearly always the ones that actually authorize (and 'authorize' is the operative word here!) mass murder and other atrocities and NOT the scientists!"
-do you deny this?
-if not, then why are you not demanding that politicians should write essays about ethics?
I do not know why you show such prejudice against scientists -why are you not demanding, say, car drivers to write essays on ethics? -after all, unethical car drivers are responsible for many thousands deaths on the roads. These days they are probably overall responsible for more deaths than 'scientists' so why are you not demanding that car drivers need a course in ethics in particular?
Making people write essays about ethics will not make them moral! it is just total nonsense to think that making them write essays about ethics would make them more moral! what is the premise of your belief that it would make a significant difference?
-I think you sure don't understand people!
(I would be very grateful if you gave me your specific answer to these 4 specific question above)
12 Mar 13
5 edits
Originally posted by humyyou spent about 5 pages arguing the nazis were christian so don't call my ideas strange!
You have totally failed to properly address my 5 questions and you are just so totally wrong about all of that.
You got some very strange ideas in your head and I cannot imagine where you got them from.
The average scientists have no more opportunity for evil harm than a non-scientist and forcing people to do totally irrelevant essays on ethics when they be very grateful if you gave me your specific answer to these 4 specific question above)
Politics students do write essays on ethics, car drivers do have driving licenses, as I said before the chemical industry up to the 1970s was just like a porsche 911 with no driving license they turned out so many toxins with bugger all tests, any chemist could tell you that! but very few have been given an hour to sit down and discuss it as part of there course. I think it would be very healthy to do so. And on the news last night ... no new antibiotics in 25 years! another thing they could discuss!
Not sure if that answers your question.
12 Mar 13
6 edits
Originally posted by e4chris
you spent about 5 pages arguing the nazis were christian so don't call my ideas strange!
Politics students do write essays on ethics, car drivers do have driving licenses, as I said before the chemical industry up to the 1970s was just like a porsche 911 with no driving license they turned out so many toxins with bugger all tests, any chemist could tell ...[text shortened]... tics in 25 years! another thing they could discuss!
Not sure if that answers your question.
you spent about 5 pages arguing the nazis were christian so don't call my ideas strange!
why is that strange? ALL the history books and ALL the historical records without a single exception say and always have said that they (most of them) were Christian! and you so far failed to provide a single shred of evidence or a single good reason to think that all these history books and all these historical records are, inexplicably, all wrong about this! -so it is very strange that you say they were NOT Christian! -you deny history. Its like denying any of the Romans were ever Christian or denying the Moon landings.
Politics students do write essays on ethics
Not all of them. What about those that don't? Why don't you insist that they all should?
car drivers do have driving licenses,
-and car drivers don't have to write essays on ethics and yet they kill thousands of people on the road every year -so I ask you yet again:
why are you not demanding that car drivers write essays on ethics?
as I said before the chemical industry up to the 1970s was just like a porsche 911 with no driving license they turned out so many toxins with bugger all tests, any chemist could tell you that!
what are you talking about? No self-respecting chemist will “tell you that” because that is vague and doesn't make any sense.
And chemists can learn chemistry without necessarily learning the history of it so a chemist may not be able to "tell you" anything about " the chemical industry up to the 1970s". Most of Chemistry is about understanding chemical reactions and chemical bonds and physical properties of chemicals etc (I should know because I have done three courses of it) -it is not essential to have a history lesson in the chemical industry in the past to understand these things! (none of the chemistry courses I did even mentioned the 'history of the chemical industry'!)
12 Mar 13
3 edits
Originally posted by humy> The nazis were christian ... yes as they goose stepped into catholic poland with a great big hindu symbol on there flag.
you spent about 5 pages arguing the nazis were christian so don't call my ideas strange!
why is that strange? ALL the history books and ALL the historical records without a single exception say and always have said that they (most of them) were Christian! -so it is pretty strange that you say they were NOT Christian! -you deny history. tanding chemical reactions and chemical bonds and physical properties of chemicals etc.
> Politics students do write essays on ethics, off course they do, how do you write laws on abortion without ethics?
> A driving license is 'ethics for a car' no you don't do an essay its multiple choice in th UK, but if you are not responsible you'll fail.
> The Chemical industry up to the 70s and beyond was a bit wreckless, and there are chemists who will not just tell you that, they will rant about it. There are lots of books about it, but they don't usually make it onto a B.Sc reading list.
12 Mar 13
7 edits
Originally posted by e4chris
> The nazis were christian ... yes as they goose stepped into catholic poland with a great big hindu symbol on there flag.
> Politics students do write essays on ethics, off course they do, how do you write laws on abortion without ethics?
> A driving license is 'ethics for a car' no you don't do an essay its multiple choice in th UK, but if you are n There are lots of books about it, but they don't usually make it onto a B.Sc reading list.
> The nazis were christian ... yes as they goose stepped into catholic poland with a great big hindu symbol on there flag.
irrelevant -they still were Christian.
> Politics students do write essays on ethics, off course they do,
I didn't say they didn't -read my post again. Not all of them would write essays on ethics; the 'not all' are the operative words here. What about those that don't? would you insist that they do even if it is not part of their course?
> A driving license is 'ethics for a car'
-but not for the ethics for the person himself. The driving license doesn't explain the difference between right and wrong in general and is not an essay on ethics.
> The Chemical industry up to the 70s and beyond was wreckless, and there are plenty of chemists who will not just tell you that they will rant about it.
That may or may not be the case, but I didn't say it wasn't the case -read my post again.