The author seems to stress about the fact that science itself is just knowledge, and therefore, morally neutral. The application of that knowledge is what should be considered good or bad, not science itself. Science is knowledge, and knowledge can only "be", it cannot have an intention, how ever, people see it to be evil along with the scientists that seek this knowledge. It is understandable how people view it to be evil, after all it was science that lead to the creation of weapons of mass destruction. However, it is also science that has provided use with everyday utilities, the light bulb, cars, television sets, phones, etc. Scientists are the pursuers of knowledge, while others seek the application of that knowledge. For example, if a scientist says, "we have discovered an element that could possible lead to the cure of cancer." The people world wide would be only interested in the idea, not the idea itself. Scientists are there to make discoveries, not to say, "If you have a problem, we can solve it for you." I was quite shocked on how much I agreed with the author, if people could come to understand his views (of which I think is great), they would be able to stop blaming scientists if their discoveries went wrong and instead, the people that used it for evil. For example, shortly after the theory of the adam was theorized, the adam bomb was built and used to level many lives during the Second World War. The blame? It was directed at the people who discovered the adam, not the ones who used the bomb for their own profit. Scientists are like little children, discovering knew things is like a child opening a present on Christmas Day.
What is more important, science or moral?
Does science benefit or degrade humanity as a whole?
Could science and moral work together? If so, why?
No comments:
Post a Comment