TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Should research be subject to ethical responsibility?

I am writing an essay on the possession of knowledge and how it carries an ethical responsibility.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 27 2012: discovery, as the name implies, is not creation. the truth is out there, it exists without us knowing about it. scientific discovery just reveals that existing structure of the universe. therefore it can not have any ethical implications.
    • Nov 27 2012: What if I try to establish the presence of a "faith" gene i.e. if you possess this faith gene, you will have faith, if you don't have this gene then you will lack faith? It does have ethical implications if you try to use science to destroy faith by establishing a biological origin for it
      • thumb
        Nov 27 2012: 1, what if?
        2, if it is genetic, how could i destroy anyone's faith?
        • Nov 27 2012: Faith is presence of belief without recourse to physical reality. To study faith and attempt to find a physical cause of it is to destroy it. If you use logic to destroy faith that is original sin. While the Bible is largely allegorical, one of the most profound passage in Genesis was when God told Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

          In other words God was saying to Adam, "Believe in me; have faith in me." Satan said to Eve, "Listen to me." Satan used logic on Eve to get her to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The first time logic was used it was used for evil i.e. to destroy faith in God. Now what are scientists trying to do? To portray the religious community as believing in the God of the Gaps i.e. more and more phenemena once believed to have supernatural occurrences can be explained by science. It is the avowed goal of people like Dawkins to eradicate religion, and, it appears, the belief in faith.You can destroy someone's faith by getting them to doubt it.
      • thumb
        Nov 27 2012: you are contradicting yourself here. you just started with faith being genetic, and now you are talking about destroying it. how can i destroy it if it is genetic? either one or the other.
        • Nov 27 2012: I'm saying that attempting to define a biological "cause" of faith, may have no validity except to scientists, but if it is used to destroy faith that others have, then it is fundamentally evil.
      • thumb
        Nov 27 2012: there is no such thing as "validity to someone". something is either valid or not. there is either a biological background for faith, or there is not. finding it out won't change it. not knowing it won't help making decisions.
        • Nov 28 2012: Valididity is in the eye of the beholder so I hold your argument invalid :)
      • thumb
        Nov 28 2012: if you think validity depends on the observer, your opinion holds no water for me
        • thumb
          Nov 28 2012: Agreed. We can discount arguments that run away to the epistemological doubting of any knowledge.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.