Originally posted by humy
There aren't many 'mad' scientists around. You are totally delusional. A few black people and a few veterinarians and a few people who like eating cheese and also a few theists might also be 'mad' scientists -so what? The fact remains that the vast majority of scientists are not 'mad' and madness is probably more common amongst non-scientists since you are less likely to be able to become a qualified scientist if you are mentally ill!

Gee I dunno Humy have you had your sanity peer reviewed?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Gee I dunno Humy have you had your sanity peer reviewed?

It doesn't matter, it's too late now... their* genes have already been released into the general population.


*scientists

Originally posted by lemon lime
It doesn't matter, it's too late now... their* genes have already been released into the general population.


*scientists

We need to find organic ways of rooting out this malignant mad scientists* and replacing them with peer reviewed sane ones.

Science devoid of ethics*

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
We need to find organic ways of rooting out this malignant mad scientists* and replacing them with peer reviewed sane ones.

Science devoid of ethics*

you are still completely delusion; there are extremely few 'mad' scientists around and almost certainly none of them would be here on this forum.
Most people who are 'mad' ( like psychopaths ) are non-scientist non-intellectual laypeople who are much more typically just morons thus it is people like you we should be more worried about.
I once had the misfortune of meeting a real psychopath who attacked me for no apparent reason whatsoever -didn't say anything and didn't do anything that could possibly account for it and it was very apparent he was totally infertile. I guess he must had an IQ of something like ~60. Stupidity and evil, NOT intelligence and evil, seem to tend to go together often. And most scientists have above average IQ and are statistically less likely to commit a crime than non-scientists because of this.

Originally posted by humy
.... and it was very apparent he was totally infertile.......

Sorry, misspelling: that should have been "infantile", not "infertile"

Originally posted by humy
you are still completely delusion; there are extremely few 'mad' scientists around and almost certainly none of them would be here on this forum.
Most people who are 'mad' ( like psychopaths ) are non-scientist non-intellectual laypeople who are much more typically just morons thus it is people like you we should be more worried about.
I once had the misfortu ...[text shortened]... rage IQ and are statistically less likely to commit a crime than non-scientists because of this.

Sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That best describes scientists. They mean well but they let the Genie out of the bottle.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
We need to find organic ways of rooting out this malignant mad scientists* and replacing them with peer reviewed sane ones.

Science devoid of ethics*

I telling you, it won't work... by definition if humy is insane, then so are his peers.

Originally posted by humy
Sorry, misspelling: that should have been "infantile", not "infertile"

It doesn't matter. If both of you are males then he couldn't have impregnated you.

Or could he? With science anything is possible!

Originally posted by humy
you are still completely delusion; there are extremely few 'mad' scientists around and almost certainly none of them would be here on this forum.
Most people who are 'mad' ( like psychopaths ) are non-scientist non-intellectual laypeople who are much more typically just morons thus it is people like you we should be more worried about.
I once had the misfortu ...[text shortened]... rage IQ and are statistically less likely to commit a crime than non-scientists because of this.

A psychopath is generally considered a psychopath due to having a dysfunctional conscience, is it not the case? They do not feel any moral inhibitions about killing, torturing, maiming other people. Scientists if they are devoid of ethics are therefore no different and may be considered psychopathic be definition especially if their chosen fields are concerned with carnage and destruction of life, is it not the case? I would also like to point out at the risk of being accused of pedantry that there are not a few highly intelligent psychopaths and the myth that they are stupid really should be dispelled.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
A psychopath is generally considered a psychopath due to having a dysfunctional conscience, is it not the case? They do not feel any moral inhibitions about killing, torturing, maiming other people. Scientists if they are devoid of ethics are therefore no different and may be considered psychopathic be definition especially if their chosen fields a ...[text shortened]... few highly intelligent psychopaths and the myth that they are stupid really should be dispelled.

Scientists if they are devoid of ethics are ...

Which they generally are NOT i.e. they normally DO have ethics just like most people -comprehend? This fact makes the rest of your post irrelevant.

Originally posted by humy

Scientists if they are devoid of ethics are ...

Which they generally are NOT i.e. they normally DO have ethics just like most people -comprehend? This fact makes the rest of your post irrelevant.

Hardly there are thousands engaged in weapons programs making the entire post most relevent.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Hardly there are thousands engaged in weapons programs making the entire post most relevent.

The majority of scientists are not employed in weapons programs. Both I and most if not all of the scientists here on these forums would not be employed in weapons programs. The funding and authorization of the weapon programs generally doesn't come from the scientists but from governments and politicians the vast majority of which are NOT scientists. When a scientist is not offered any other job other than in the weapons industry, it is perfectly understandable if he chooses, albeit possibly reluctantly, to take it given the alternative of being unemployed (although I think I would actually personally choose to be unemployed and poor but that is a tough choice so that is not to say I cannot understand their choice or be against their choice ) . So, the fact that thousands of them are employed in the weapons industry doesn't necessary mean that they would not prefer to be employed in other things such as in medical research etc. What about those thousands of scientists employed to find cures for horrible diseases?

http://careerplanning.about.com/od/occupations/p/medical_scientist.htm
"...There were 100,000 medical scientists employed in 2010. ..."

Why discount all of them? -they exist! -What could possibly be wrong with THEIR ethics? explain...

also, why is making weapons necessarily ethically questionable?
It clearly isn't because it just depends on the context. For example, the scientists developing weapons to fight against the Nazis in WW2 -surely that WAS morally justified! if it wasn't for the scientists that made the spitfire, we might have lost the war and the Nazis may have taken over the world! surely that is moral justification for weapons research! And there are still many evil people in the world that weapons can be used against whenever they cause trouble.
I am not implying here that weapons research is necessarily and generally a good thing -only that it isn't black and white as you seem to make out and weapons programs CAN sometimes be morally justified depending on context and motives.

The vast majority of scientists are not motivated to do harm and have perfectly good ethics. The few noteworthy exceptions in history where all theists and some of them Nazis. Note that both theism (in this modern day of reason ) and Nazism go against the basic principles of science (more specifically, against scientific method that clearly implies that all our conclusions and thus beliefs should be based on nothing but evidence and flawless logic. What is unethical about that? please explain.... ) so they where arguably not proper scientists because they where not totally scientific for those reasons. The vast majority of modern scientists are neither theist nor Nazi so it is not surprising that most are good people. The fast majority of crime and atrocities in the modern world are caused by theists, not scientists. Just one example: 9/11
So you should stop saying 'mad' scientists and start saying 'mad' theists.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Hardly there are thousands engaged in weapons programs making the entire post most relevent.

As technology has progressed, wars have become both less frequent and less deadly. So it is not at all clear that people working on programmes developing more advanced weapons are helping others get killed. An atomic bomb is a devastating weapon, but you're just as dead if an axe splits your skull.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
As technology has progressed, wars have become both less frequent and less deadly. So it is not at all clear that people working on programmes developing more advanced weapons are helping others get killed. An atomic bomb is a devastating weapon, but you're just as dead if an axe splits your skull.

Sorry, but that argument, which was used in the context of Syrian chemical weapons, is no good. The rules of war insist that weapons only be used on combatants. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons cannot be used in a way which distinguishes between military and civilian targets. In fact in the case of chemical weapons they are a mere nuisance to a properly equipped military, all they do is force one or other side's soldiers to wear NBC suits; a civilian population is not so protected. Besides, if someone hacks at me with an axe I have the consolation that my friends and family will survive the attack. Not so with an atom bomb.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Sorry, but that argument, which was used in the context of Syrian chemical weapons, is no good. The rules of war insist that weapons only be used on combatants. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons cannot be used in a way which distinguishes between military and civilian targets. In fact in the case of chemical weapons they are a mere nuisance to ...[text shortened]... e the consolation that my friends and family will survive the attack. Not so with an atom bomb.

My argument was that wars have become less deadly as technology advanced (although I cannot say if this was because of more advanced weaponry or because of other reasons). I'm not going to defend the use of any military weapon, targeted or no. Nuclear, chemical and modern biological weapons have caused a tiny fraction of the total casualties of war, even if you only consider civilian casualties. For most of human history, civilians were not protected during times of war, and looting, raping and pillaging the countryside was often a means to pay soldiers/mercenaries during wartime. For example, the Thirty Years' War is estimated to have reduced the population of the German parts of the Holy Roman Empire by 25-40%.