What do YOU think the limits of science should be?

[RockenNS42]

Im doing a presentation for school and I need different perspectives on peoples ideas on the limits of science (eg like on genetic engineering, using science to kill(eg atomic bomb))

 

Here are some questions;

What do you think the limits should be?

Why do you think this?

Has anything in your own life influenced this?

 

And the generic questions (for status and what not)

age-

county-

job-(if you want)

 

 

 

thanks alot

[iNow]

I don't think science has any limits, nor should it. It is the best tool at our disposal to better understand the universe around us, and it would be silly of ourselves to disallow use of our full tool set.

 

The distinction should reside with the application of science. The science itself should be unlimited, and any discussion of limits imposed purely on the idea of application (i.e. technology). The study itself should be allowed to progress unhindered.

[cameron marical]

i agree completely with inow, so long as it is used for good, and effectively.

 

as for your generics.

15

madera county, cali:cool:. {look me up all you petafiles, try it}

unemployed.

[CaptainPanic]

Science is the pursuit of knowledge.

 

It's idiots who use science to kill people and to make the world a nasty place.

 

The first person who made fire might have done that for protection. Soon after it was probably used as a weapon. Is science to be blamed for that? I don't think so. Is the inventor of the internet responsible for the illegal downloads? Is the inventor of the car responsible for traffic accidents?

 

There should be no limit to science, and in fact, there cannot be a limit. People are just too curious to have a limit.

 

And yes, everybody in my life has influenced me on each and every possible topic. If I had lived in complete solitude, I would have been a different person.

 

generic: age 25-30 yrs

job: chemical process engineer

country: see location below.

[YT2095]

the limits should be as far as it will let us go.

we may reach a zenith or brick wall where we can`t go any further with Science, but we owe it to ourselves find out and Learn as much as we possibly can along the way.

 

as for the Applications, I can prepare a fine meal or cut your throat, which one is the Knifes faults? similarly, is it Sciences fault if the things learned are abused?

 

40 something, UK, problem solver.

[Daecon]

The only limit science needs is to be kept completely separate from politics.

[ajb]

The only limit science needs is to be kept completely separate from politics.

 

I think that is unrealistic as it is the general public that fund most of the research into fundamental science.

 

I don't think there should be any limits as such, but what we must retain is openness and accountability. Partly for the reason above, but also form the wider perspective that science should benefit mankind. Interpretation of benefit is what courses most of the public issues with science and scientists.

 

Using science in war is a very difficult question. My attitude is that war makes devils of us all. For the greater good sometimes it is necessary to pervert ones ideas.

 

Have you considered if science and religion are compatible? I am thinking of the Abrahamic religions specifically.

 

Age- 31

Country- UK

Job- research student

[Daecon]

Have you considered if science and religion are compatible? I am thinking of the Abrahamic religions specifically.

Yes. In the same way that water and electricity are compatible.

[Kaeroll]

Yes. In the same way that water and electricity are compatible.

What - if you impurify the water it'll conduct well enough, but stepping into the puddle isn't recommended?

[D H]

Of course science has limits, and rightfully so. Without limits on ethical concerns, some future Dr. Josef Mengele or Taliaferro Clark would have free rein to once again experiment on how to create children with blue eyes or passively watch a curable disease run rampant through a population. Without very strict rules on biohazard research, some dufus in what should be a biosafety level 4 facility might well unleash the disease that kills us all.

 

Holding science sacrosanct leads to all kinds of abuses. Example: Killing whales for commercial reasons is illegal; killing whales in the name of science is perfectly fine. The Japanese have flaunted the rules against commercial whaling by calling their whaling science.

[SH3RL0CK]

Of course science has limits, and rightfully so. Without limits on ethical concerns, some future Dr. Josef Mengele or Taliaferro Clark would have free rein to once again experiment on how to create children with blue eyes or passively watch a curable disease run rampant through a population. Without very strict rules on biohazard research, some dufus in what should be a biosafety level 4 facility might well unleash the disease that kills us all.

 

Holding science sacrosanct leads to all kinds of abuses. Example: Killing whales for commercial reasons is illegal; killing whales in the name of science is perfectly fine. The Japanese have flaunted the rules against commercial whaling by calling their whaling science.

 

 

Very well said. We cannot ignore ethics.

 

In addition to ethical and moral limits, science is also limited by funding. I 'm not sure if science has sufficient funding (IMO it does not), but this situation isn't going to change in my lifetime. There simply isn't (and will never be) enough money to fund all the possible research available and we must decide which projects are more worthy of funding than others.

 

Another current limitation is the lack of quality researchers. People who really, really understand certain fields and can therefore advance the scientific knowledge base are quite rare for lots of reasons and throwing money towards research won't help without the right people working. As with the money, I don't expect this to change in my lifetime.

 

In both of these, I think it is right to have limits. If everyone were scientific researchers with unlimited funds the world would be lacking in other things which (in addition to knowledge) give life meaning and prupose. There is much more to life than simply knowledge, there must be a good balance.

[padren]

Of course science has limits, and rightfully so. Without limits on ethical concerns, some future Dr. Josef Mengele or Taliaferro Clark would have free rein to once again experiment on how to create children with blue eyes or passively watch a curable disease run rampant through a population. Without very strict rules on biohazard research, some dufus in what should be a biosafety level 4 facility might well unleash the disease that kills us all.

 

Holding science sacrosanct leads to all kinds of abuses. Example: Killing whales for commercial reasons is illegal; killing whales in the name of science is perfectly fine. The Japanese have flaunted the rules against commercial whaling by calling their whaling science.

 

When we say science shouldn't be limited it doesn't mean that I a scientist should be able to abduct the president and cut open his brain to learn something - it's the belief (I think) that there isn't scientific information out there that should not be known. Gathering that information may be hindered due to ethical concerns, and rightly so, but the information is just knowledge. That knowledge may be used in horrible ways, and it's capacities should be respected for their power to have a huge and possibly negative impact, but that has more to do with choices people make in how to use that knowledge, not the knowledge itself.

 

And also: I don't think many scientists (especially in marine biology) are really all that "okay" with Japan's justification for whaling. It's pretty much condemned not for the type of science but the damage it does to whales.

[rpf_81]

As far as science is concerned, there are no limits as long as it serves on ethical values.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Science is the systematic classification of experience.

- George Henry Lewes

 

We haven't classified 100% . The knowledge we have about science is incomplete...

[Daecon]

What exactly is wrong with believing that the ends justify the means when it comes to science and the furtherance of knowledge about how the Universe works, as opposed to issues of politics or "personal gain"?

[Kyrisch]

What exactly is wrong with believing that the ends justify the means when it comes to science and the furtherance of knowledge about how the Universe works, as opposed to issues of politics or "personal gain"?

 

The main issue with ends and means is not that scientific morality will lead to amorality (the semantic contradiction obfuscates, but does not hinder the meaning), but rather that science relies on relatively indisputable data upon which to function and there is no comprehensive way to evaluate whether or not the ends justify the means. As such, science does not conclude that "the ends always justify the means" but works on a case-by-case basis, and can only pass jurisdiction when there is a formal system by which to assign value to things that everyone agrees upon.

[immortal]

I don't think science has any limits, nor should it. It is the best tool at our disposal to better understand the universe around us, and it would be silly of ourselves to disallow use of our full tool set.

 

 

I disagree, science has some limitations with in itself, whether we try to impose some limitations on the applications are not.

The reason for my arguement is that our sense organs have limitations we can not look the whole of physical world as it is.(eg:- radiowaves and other em waves). Another important reason is that our intelligence has some limitations. Most mathematicians agree that the central nervous system is using less logic and lesser math to solve its problems. So there is something beyond intelligence. Our language impose limitations on how much we can think.

[iNow]

I disagree, science has some limitations with in itself, whether we try to impose some limitations on the applications are not.

The reason for my arguement is that our sense organs have limitations we can not look the whole of physical world as it is.(eg:- radiowaves and other em waves). Another important reason is that our intelligence has some limitations. Most mathematicians agree that the central nervous system is using less logic and lesser math to solve its problems. So there is something beyond intelligence. Our language impose limitations on how much we can think.

But none of those limitations you've cited have anything to do with science or the scientific method itself. Each are obstacles with the system under study or measuring device probing that system, not the process of inquiry.

 

You're certainly free to disagree, I just wanted to point out where your explanation for that disagreement appears lacking.