www.talkcyprus.org

[turkcyp]

This is another interesting subject....

Should scientists be required to restrict or censor their research and therefore the results if required by the democratic societies. OR of the popular will of the society contradict with science should it still be respected and obeyed.

For example, if the majority of a country votes on for example to reinstate creationism in text books instead of evolution, should this democratic act still be respected.

To what extend democratic we can be if we are not scientific in nature?

[thebrix]

turkcyp wrote: This is another interesting subject....

Should scientists be required to restrict or censor their research and therefore the results if required by the democratic societies. OR of the popular will of the society contradict with science should it still be respected and obeyed.

For example, if the majority of a country votes on for example to reinstate creationism in text books instead of evolution, should this democratic act still be respected.

To what extend democratic we can be if we are not scientific in nature?

The "democratic societies" don't come into it directly; scientific research is self-policing to an extraordinary degree. How much of that policing is reflected public opinion is almost impossible to say.

One example was DNA research; when things started getting interesting in the early 1970s - it became possible to alter DNA in a controlled manner - there was a cry of "stop!" from those involved, a moratorium on experiments, and a procedure worked out on what could and could not be done. That still holds; anyone who tried to clone a human, for example, would be a pariah.

An exception to all that is research during wartime, where democrats (and autocrats) drive what was done. There have been agonised grapplings over the past few years - I am not sure there is yet an outcome - over what to do with the results of WWII concentration camp experiments; it has been shown that many of them were scientifically sound and gave valuable results, although they were collected using criminal methods. (That criminality, perversely, being why they were valuable; there was no conceivable legal way they could have been gathered given the extreme environmental conditions studied).

People are entirely welcome to put creationism in textbooks as long as its shortcomings are pointed out, just as they are welcome to put quantum mechanics in textbooks ditto! (Some very trenchant remarks from Professor Steve Jones on this issue).

[cypezokyli]

tough one turkcyp.

have scientist respected the majority, europe would have stayed in the middle ages. thats the one side of the coin :wink:

(evolution i believe is taught in a number of countries in the west. but again that was a majority decision )

if a country democratically accepts creationism , u can try to convince them otherwise , but i dont understand what you mean by : "should this democratic act still be respected" ? what other choise do we have other than respecting it ?
i dont believe that democracies were created to make "right" decisions , but just decisions.

on restricting research :

i think, it should depend on the possible consequences of the scientific research. i.e. it should not be left to scientists to experiment on nuclear energy. or make research on how we can make more desctructive missiles, without control from the state.


the current debate of biotechnology - is imo on how dangerous, uncontrolled biotechnology can be.
thats on the restrict part. should scientists beleft free to create humans ?


on the sencor part - no scientific research should be sencored.

[turkcyp]

cypezokyli wrote:
i dont believe that democracies were created to make "right" decisions , but just decisions.

this is interesting....

Firstly I do not think that democracies were created to make just decisions but rather were created to make sure that decisions made were the ones of people...

Even if what you say is true, can a decision which is against the findings of scientific research be just?

Let me think over this for a while.

Can something be unscientific and just at the same time? Something I have never thought before....Hmmm.....

[repulsewarrior]

Remember the rocket scientists that were executed for treason, because they traded information to the Russians, their government, the American government wanted to keep secret. Years after, we learn that you cannot keep the truth from being known; with the right knowledge you can build an "A" bomb or whatever, and if it was done once it will be done again: that's science.

Democracy is about building the character of the individual, so that in one's quests, one derives ways to better one's self, while bringing no harm to others.

[cypezokyli]

turkcyp wrote: cypezokyli wrote:
i dont believe that democracies were created to make "right" decisions , but just decisions.

this is interesting....

Firstly I do not think that democracies were created to make just decisions but rather were created to make sure that decisions made were the ones of people...

Even if what you say is true, can a decision which is against the findings of scientific research be just?

Let me think over this for a while.

Can something be unscientific and just at the same time? Something I have never thought before....Hmmm.....

oops...
i think we have i misanderstanding here.
in the above sentence, i didnot mean "just" - as "justice". perhaps it was a wrong formulation.
perhaps if you take away the "just" it would make more sense.
democracies were made to make decisions , not to make "right" decisions.


and that is only a reply to the question , "should we respect the verdict of democracies even if we know that it is scientifically wrong" ?

so i also do not believe that the democratic decisions are just.
but the fact that they are majority decisions, the majority decides to call them that way.