Reply to comment

A few thoughts on what you said in the meeting this morning: 

• Science sets itself apart from other fields because of its need for evidence and observations based on this accumulated data.  If science is a field (a formal system?) that seeks to explain the unknown with evidence, can we not draw parallels between it and religion?  Scientists seek facts that will bolster their assumptions and generate new thought on a particular subject; those of a religious background seek to affirm assumptions they have in place as well, and look to evidence such as miracles and Scripture.  It's interesting to think of religion as a type of "science" in the true sense of the word, although you might consider it to be a "pseudoscience" instead.  Considering this, is religion itself a formal system, and how do we define these?

• Scientists should not be given the responsibility of explaining the ethical impact of their work in relation to the rest of the world.  I don't see why scientists, who have worked most closely with the materials/experiments in question, should not be given the opportunity to contribute what they know to the formation of an ethical explanation/explanation of possible ethical consequences.  Obviously they should not be the only ones involved in this explanation, but I think it would be most effective if representatives from a variety of fields took part and voiced their opinion.  We will never know if someone has an interesting, fresh view on a certain topic until we allow them to speak and be heard, even if their view initially seems controversial or irrelevant.

• The practice of science is different from ideal science itself because of its employment of values.  I agree that values are inherent in science because of humans' constant presence in the scientific field--after all, science is a cultural phenomenon that is purely man-made, and therefore passes through the filter of human thought and morality.  The distinction between the practice of science and science itself confuses me, however.  You say that ideal science (subjective science) is something to strive for, and that it is.  But science can never be "value-free" because it has everything to do with human beings, and human beings can never be "value-free."  Humans are creatures with a moral and ethical center; therefore there will always be ethical ramifications following science and thus a need for values.  Is it better to toss out the "ideal" because it is unreachable?  And if this "ideal" is real science, what do we call what we are doing now?