Humanists4Science: Can Scientists Be Morally Neutral? BBC4, Saturday 9.10pm

Saturday, 23 January 2010

Can Scientists Be Morally Neutral? BBC4, Saturday 9.10pm

Over dinner, Michael Portillo and seven guests discuss whether scientists can be morally neutral in their pursuit of scientific knowledge. Should scientists take an ethical stand on how science is used? Should there be limits on what scientists are allowed to discover? What ethical dilemmas will be thrown up by the science of the future? Guests include Baroness Susan Greenfield, Mark Henderson, and Bryan Appleyard.

3 comments:

Unknown said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 19 July 2010 at 21:59
Aria Kerry said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 19 July 2010 at 23:48
Unknown said...: Thank you for this very useful information.
dissertation help | analysis thesis; 11 August 2010 at 00:40

About Humanists4Science (Hum4Sci)

Humanists4Science (H4S) Mission "To promote, within the humanist community, the application of the scientific method to issues of concern to broader society."

H4S Vision "A world in which important decisions are made by applying the scientific method to evidence rather than according to superstition."

H4S is for humanists with an active interest in science. We believe that science is a fundamental part of humanism but also that it should be directed to humane and ethical ends. Science is, in our view, more a method than a body of facts.

H4S take a naturalistic view and believe, like 62% of the UK population, that science, the scientific method & other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe.

H4S are a Special Interest Group of the British Humanist Association (BHA).

Since 2008 H4S members have discussed many Humanist-Science topics in our Yahoo Group.

Prof. Jim Al-Khalili - 11TH BHA President - On Scientific Method

'I have a rational unshakeable conviction that our universe is understandable, that mysteries are only mysteries because we have yet to figure out, the almost always logical answers. For me there is simply no room, no need, for a supernatural divine being to fill in the gaps in our understanding. We’ll get there, we’ll fill in those gaps with objective scientific truths: [with] answers that aren't subjective, because of cultural or historical whims or personal biases, but because of empirically testable and reproducible truths. We may not get the full picture, we may never get the full picture, but science allows us to get ever closer.’ Jim Al-Khalili, BHA AGM 2013

"A lot of people say science is just one way of looking at the world, at reality, and poets and musicians and, of course, people of faith, have said there are other ways. I don't buy that. For me there is an objective reality that is there and real. For a theoretical physicist who's trained in thinking about quantum mechanics, which involves the idea that by observing something you alter its nature, you have to have some sort of working definitions of reality"
Jim Al-Khalili in New Humanist magazine Mar Apr 2013

Lord Taverne

Science depends on reason and regard for evidence. For me, the scientific approach lies at the heart of humanism as well as atheism. We all accept that science has made us healthier and wealthier. What has been seldom acknowledged or realised is that since the Enlightenment, which it helped to bring about, science has played an essential part in making us more civilised.

Science is the enemy of autocracy because it replaces claims to truth based on authority with those based on evidence and because it depends on the criticism of established ideas. Scientific knowledge is the enemy of dogma and ideologies and makes us more tolerant because it is tentative and provisional and does not deal in certainties. It is the most effective way of learning about the physical world and therefore erodes superstition, ignorance and prejudice, which have been causes of the denial of human rights throughout history. Science is also the enemy of narrow nationalism and tribalism and, like the arts, is one of the activities in this world that is not motivated by greed.

What can compare, for example, with the recent achievement of the Large Hadron Collider, a venture of collaboration by 10,000 scientists and engineers from 113 countries, free from bureaucratic and political interference? Those people put aside all national, political, religious and cultural differences in pursuit of truth and for the one purpose of exploring and understanding the natural world.

Without the contribution of science, which is, in my view, the rock on which atheism and humanism are built, we would be less inclined to be critical, tolerant and understanding and more prone to prejudice, bigotry and tribalism. We would be a less civilised society.

Lord Taverne, 25th July 2013, House of Lords debate on contribution of Humanism and Atheism

Pages

Saturday, 23 January 2010

Can Scientists Be Morally Neutral? BBC4, Saturday 9.10pm

3 comments: