Please respond to both of the following
questions/statements:
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
1) I think that scientific knowledge in the 21st century is definitely valued for the technology that it produces. Then modern person can't fully "appreciate" something unless they get a physical object that they can call theirs that comes from the science. For an example, phones. There are a lot of different things that a phone can accomplish and it can research scientific knowledge by simply being a product of scientific knowledge itself. But the only reason we really appreciate that knowledge is because of where it comes from: our pockets. I don't think any science can be pursued without the use or help of technology. A scientist is always going to need a way of logging every part of his experiments and data collections, and a way to calculate them. Any form of science requires some form of technology to go along with it.
ReplyDelete2) Scientists should receive recognition and praise for their work, especially if it is accurate and correct, but I don't think that they should be held accountable for any wrongdoings that go on in their area of science. We, or at least I haven't heard, don't post all over social media saying that so and so is a fraud for their claim about science. We don't do it anymore, at least. Back when Copernicus had discovered the Earth revolved around the sun, he got a lot of hate for speaking up. I don't very much agree that technological advances drive changes in morality. I don't see how it could change anything other than how fast we accomplish different tasks. Again, I'm biased, because when I read "technological advances" I automatically think of a cell phone.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteScientific knowledge is valued for its own sake, but only to the working scientist. Most scientists are driven by interest in an issue, but those who fund the research are not. The investors are only concerned with the usefulness of the product the scientist makes, or how much money it will make them. It is difficult to predict what research could be furthered without technology, but it would most likely be successful in the human sciences. In the human sciences we can observe humans and our surroundings much better without the aid of technology.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
Scientists should be held morally accountable for the applications of there discovers, but only if they were willingly seeking out their discovery. A scientist who discovered the answer for a scientific question on accent, should not be accountable as it was random. I do think technological advances drive changes in values and morality but morality and a person's values can vary. How much we let these advanced dictate who we are and what we think is right also varies. Scientific knowledge should be used to our advantage as a society, rather than for companies or specific scientists gain. Advances in military technology and animal testing to cure diseases could be seen as heroic, but the act or predict that result from these can be negative later on.
1. Scientists become scientists because they are interested in key concepts. In that way, scientists value their own scientific knowledge and value new scientific breakthroughs because they are interested in the subjects rather than the technology that makes it possible. However, it is difficult to be a scientist without funding. So in that way, scientific research is swayed by what corporations and governments are willing to fund. Since governments are often only interested in technology, it is difficult in this day and age to be a scientist and get the funding necessary without technology. It is possible to do research without technology but the research will not be to the same scale and specificity as research done with technology. It would be far less efficient. In many cases, however, scientific research has only been made possible with state-of-the-art technology. We would not have been able to go to the moon 1000 years ago without the technology to make a spaceship. However, someone probably could have calculated how far away the moon was or something to that effect without advanced technology.
ReplyDelete2. If scientists are aware of what their research is going towards, they are definitely morally responsible. However, they should not be held responsible for discovering a key concept that someone else then uses in a way not intended to commit a crime. For example, the scientists who developed the atomic bomb are morally responsible because they should have known in war time that the United States was planning to kill innocent people with a weapon with such potential for mass destruction. However, someone who develops a hunting gun that someone then uses the gun to kill a person, is not necessarily morally responsible. Technological advances definitely change our values and morality. The atomic bomb is a prime example.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteScientific knowledge is still valued for what it is, and how it can help further our understanding of the world around us. We still learn in school how the different sciences, whether it be chemistry, biology, or physics, all interact with us. However, I also believe that nowadays, scientific knowledge is definitely valued for the technology that it can create as well. People strive to create a new program or app that will take the world by storm, eager to see how their creation can help change and possibly better our day to day lives in society. This obsession and investment in technology is not showing any signs of stopping anytime soon, but I believe that the knowledge itself is still the core value we strive for. Furthermore, there are sciences that do not require technology to be pursued. An example of such would be human sciences. There is a large category, including sociology and psychology, that observes human nature and interaction without the need of technology.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
Scientists should be held morally responsible for their discoveries if they themselves use their invention with negative intentions. However, it is difficult to prevent the sharing of such knowledge. In this case, the scientists no longer are personally involved with such actions and should not be held accountable for the poor decisions of others. I believe that the intentions of these scientists while creating such discoveries does not correspond with the applications. Technological advances can also change morality and values. Wars were always fought with the newest weapons, from bows and arrows to tanks and machine guns. Weapons were always created to be used until the atomic bomb. This area of scientific knowledge has been labeled as morally and ethically unacceptable to pursue, but has also changed humanity’s views on weapons. Because of the predicted destruction and mass chaos that could ensue, the atomic bomb is one of the first weapons that has been created but not used in regular wars, changing our values and views of the world.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteWell, see, now we're getting into the technicalities of what technology is. Technology is just something that helps us do things, a tool, a technique. It's a something we create to help us do a thing. A fork is technology. So if our definition of technology is so broad, it's very hard to separate science from the ideas that come out of it. I can't think of a single science we don't use some kind of technology with and still get decent results. I mean, how would you share your findings? That pencil you recorded it all with is technology! I don't know how to talk about this more.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
They shouldn't be held accountable for what other people choose to do with their discovery unless it's one that they endorse. In which case, they should be held as responsible as anyone else contributing to the militarized problem.It's morally unacceptable to create humans artificially. Anyone doing that is fully aware of what they're doing and endorsing it. It's not an accidental use. It's not just a possible application of the discovery. They aren't allowed to do it. We've decided as a culture. Technological advances warp culture which changes the ideas of right and wrong so yes, it does change values but mostly because it changes the core of what we believe in.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteAlthough scientific knowledge should be valued more for its own sake, it is realistically valued more for the technology that it makes possible. Society tends to care less about the actual scientific knowledge, and care more about how that scientific knowledge can be applied to advance and better society. Scientific knowledge may be valued more to scientists because it serves as an achievement to them. However, materialistic investors and consumers are likely concerned with how they can benefit from that scientific knowledge. Some human sciences can be pursued without the use of technology such as psychology and anthropology because they don’t require much scientific research and are based mainly upon observation.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
Scientists should be held morally responsible for the application of their discoveries if they are aware of what their discoveries are being used for. Sometimes scientists are not in control or get to choose what their discoveries can be applied to, and therefore should not be held morally accountable. Technological advances definitely have the influence to change values and morality. For example, the creation of gunpowder and atomic bomb ultimately sparked an atmosphere that was much more aggressive and militaristic. Scientific knowledge that derived from testing things on animals or people are morally unacceptable to an extent. They are morally unacceptable, but are necessary for the greater good. For example, most makeup brands tests on animals, even the ones that have no animal testing labels on them. They need to test their products on animals before they can sell them to make sure they are safe for people who are applying these potential dangerous products onto their face.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteIdeally we would value science for it's sake, but realistically we like to see production of something beyond knowledge so therefore it is valued for the technology that it makes possible. We have understood math to be science that studies how numbers work together, this was created before technology came into action. Yes we have calculators and other advanced technology which greatly helps with math, but it can be pursued without the need of technology. Technology helps advance what was already there. Majority of the science that is present came from basic fundamental factors that preceded the existence of technology. This includes physics, biology and many more.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
Holding scientists responsible for the application of their discoveries is almost a necessity because if an individual discovers something which could potentially be used for danger then they should study all aspect of what is discovered. If a chemical substance is distributed throughout the country and it harms Earth then that individual (or group) should be held responsible. All the necessary amount of research should be done so as to inform the public or other scientists. If scientists were not held responsible then enough caution would not be taken to make sure that the new discovered item is well understood before taking any further action to apply it. Technology advancing is definitely changing individual’s morality because about century or so ago, changing an preborn baby’s makeup would be considered wrong. In the same way people are having surgery now and changing their appearance through the use of technology. The easier that sort of technology is accessible, the more frequently these types of things are happening- which in turn causes society to evolve and be morally acceptable. There have been studies in that past which were taken to see how a sort of chemical substance, bomb or other things of that sort affects humans. Studies like that which is used to obtain more knowledgeable is just morally unacceptable.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteTechnology functions as a key factor for science. However, it is NOT what is valued most, or should be valued most, as a product of scientific knowledge. The way the human race continues is the identification of the need of technology through scientific knowledge, and then the creation of technology to meet that need. Of course, science as a WoK, intersects the areas and therefore the processes of other WoK. For example, science intersects history, and science can be pursued during the processes of history. Unless, one categorizes books and databases of information into technology because then history would also require technology. However, ecology forms a subsection of science and can be improved by just observing natural behavior of animals, the interspecific relations between them, and the abiotic factors that affect them. However, this is made much more efficient through the use of technology.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
Scientists should be held responsible for the applications of their discoveries, to an extent. Although they partook in the creation of the discoveries they make, the cog that truly should be held responsible I believe should be the applicant of each discovery. Society only holds Einstein and the scientists that worked with him on the creation of the nuclear bomb to an extent. The one that typically becomes the center of attention for blame, and rightfully so, becomes the generals, presidents, and officers that press the big red button. Some areas of scientific knowledge are morally unacceptable such as the creation of weapons of mass destruction. Or, the creation of cruel tools such as weapons of torture and other tools such as sonar crowd control machines. Technological advances drive changes in values and morality to the extent that some technology causes paradigm shifts in the capabilities of the human race.
I believe that people who grew up without the constant need for technology value it for its own sake, whereas the younger generations appreciate it for the technology it brings us. When science was first discovered, it was pursued without the use of technology. It was only as time went by that technology became more pertinent and involved in scientific discoveries and usage. The medicines, machinery, and electronics we have today solely rely on technology, ad technology is the reason we have such advanced knowledge of specific sciences.
ReplyDeleteScientists should not be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries. Not all scientists that discovered something intended to, and that goes with good and bad discoveries. Whoever discovered nuclear power should not be held accountable for bombs dropped on other cities, it is mankind’s fault for using the scientific discovery in a negative way. Technology does shape the way humans view things therefore, yes it does change values. People these days value their electronics greatly and tend to care less about the little things such as face to face conversations and interactions.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteI believe that there are those who value science for its own sake and those who value science for technology. There are many scientists that are passionate about science and discovering new concepts and theories. These scientists and people value science for the way it is and are interested in the subject itself. I think that these ways were more popular in the past but now it has progressed more towards technology. In today's society because we focus so much on technology I think a lot of science is becoming more for technology. I also think that in our generation it is more difficult to pursue science without technology because of the necessary experiments trials.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
I believe that scientists should be held accountable for the application of their discoveries in given situations. When scientists are trying to create new technology that are meant for negative purposes they should be accountable. However, I do not think that scientists should be held accountable when people decided to use an object for bad purposes. Scientists cannot predict the morals and intentions of those who are going to be using their discoveries. I think that technological advances have the opportunity to change values and morality however I believe it depends on the person. I think that it should be used to benefit our society instead of create harm and problems. I think that some scientific discoveries are unacceptable like those that experiment with animal testing and unnecessary weapons.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteScientific Knowledge can most definitely be valued for its own worth and the discoveries it has. Many people Value science based purely on the ideas and theories just as other can find themselves more interested in the technology that helps make science possible. I could be totally wrong but i do not know of any areas of science that do not rely on technology especially right now in which technology is booming. Almost all scientific discovers have came about thanks to the technology even if it was old technology. I think science can be perused without technology however it must be difficult to conduct any experiments and theories without technology.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
I think Scientist should be held morally responsible for their discoveries and experiment if their discoveries can harm people or they are deemed immoral by society. Some technological advancements drive a huge gap in between different people's morals. For example electrothearpy for young homosexual teens. Just because there is the technology and some "scientific" theory behind an idea does not mean it is morally okay, even though others view these ideas as normal. I guess peoples' morals differ in subjects such like this.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteDepending on the definition of technology that one uses, this question can be very different. For instance, technology could even be a lever. This is based on science and has been useful since Egyptian times. In recent times, science is only useful for what problems it solves in society today. There is still some research that is done for research’s sake but for the most part research is done with the money of big companies. These big companies expect results that help them, and so these studies are focused on producing technology. However, there is also a large amount of theoretical space research that is going on today. It can also be argued, however, that scientists are investigating space only to find how the universe works and thus help with things on earth. Scientific knowledge is only really ever valuable if it can be confirmed. Oftentimes the method for confirming scientific discoveries is through the use of technology. Without technology to confirm, science is only speculation. It would be like pointing to the tides and saying the moon caused it without any confirmation. No one would believe this without the evidence that was gathered by technology. That being said, there are some basic scientific principles that can be proven without technology, like gravity. The effects of gravity can be easily seen without the use of technology; however technology must be used to find what the force of gravity is.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
A good example to study in the context of this question is the creation of the atom bomb. Should the scientists on the manhattan project be held responsible for the deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? In my mind, only partially. The scientists knew what they were creating and that it would revolutionize warfare, but they did not really know the impact on human life it would have. There was only speculation as to its effects and the US felt that it was necessary for ending what was the bloodiest world war yet. The atom bomb also is useful in context of the second question. The atom bomb changed the way that the whole world fought in wars. Before the atom bomb, humans used any and all weapons available to them in warfare, no matter whether it was ethically right. With the creation of the atom bomb, which could literally lead to the end of the world, US and Russia both chose not to ruin the world. In addition to this, the creation of phones and then smart phones completely changed the values of society. Other changes in value are driven by the natural progression of society to change, but often times technology is the driving force behind social changes. I think that some areas of science are morally unacceptable if they are directly related to the killing of people. For instance, I think that weapons research can be considered morally wrong if it is excessive, like in the case of the atom or hydrogen bomb. These cause unnecessarily large death tolls that do not create peace by ending war but rather more destruction.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteIf we limit our answer to literally just the words in the question "for the technology it produces," then yes, as a society we value science for more than technology. What defines technology, exactly? Does cancer research fall under that umbrella? What about saving a species or a habitat? These are largely funded scientific pursuits that society cares about and values that have more than producing a nano chip.
However, if we take a broader interpretation and ask whether science is valued for the sake of science, then I think that generally as a society we have moved away from finding intrinsic value in the scientific process. Look at who funds science and why. The overwhelming bulk is funded for a specific outcome, not to advance the inquiry process. Yes, there are camps of people pushing philosophical or moral questions by using the scientific method, proving that science can be done without technology, but most is for profit.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
If I create a new word and someone turns the word into a swear word, is that my fault? What would be the incentive for any scientist to try to solve any problem or make any progress? And many discoveries can come from science that may seem to have negative impacts, as the already mentioned atomic bomb which was obviously bad but also created nuclear fission, which is used in power plants, and let us understand the concept of nuclear fusion. Another example is Thalidomide, which was given to women to stop morning sickness but turned out to make babies have no arms or legs, but also turned out to be a powerful cancer drug because it stops cell growth. If we hold scientists accountable for the side effects of their discoveries, they will be a lot less willing to take risks. At the same time, scientists should work from a moral code so they don't set out to do questionable things. Like, if you are going to set out to make babies that glow in the dark, that's probably not a good idea.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteWhile science for its own sake is certainly valued, the majority of the money, and therefore the majority of the science, is preformed to advance technology. When I say this, I mean that it is preformed to directly advance technology. Science is the basis for knowledge, and without new knowledge, discovered with "science for the sake of science", technology has no place to advance too. When lasers were in their infancy during the 1960s, Theodore Maiman had no plans to see them used for bar code scanners or to remove hair. The difference between pure science and commercial science is simply how long it takes for whatever was discovered to be put to use.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
Scientists, more often than not, should not be help accountable of the results of their experiments. Science creates tools, and those that hold the tool not its creator, decide its use. There are examples where the tools have only one use, here scientists must shoulder some of the responsibility for how it is used.
Creation of new technology certainly can create change in morality, as with nearly every new discovery, its morality is questioned. I am quite sure that genetic modification of humans will become a hot issue soon.
While there is no area of scientific knowledge that is inherently immoral, there are certainly ways that knowledge can be pursued that are immoral. The Nazi's experiments pursued many areas of knowledge that benefit mankind: treatment of wounds, hypothermia, but the manner in which knowledge was gained was needlessly cruel and undoubtedly immoral.
There is probably parts of sciences that can be experimented without the use technology but not as much. If scientist were to analyze some people prove something and they are going to test 200 people they will not be able to record and manually write on paper what were the results and keep track that way but they will use technology to be able to keep track. Most patients depend technology because they are alive that they are connected to a machine. Technology has now become a part of science as well as a part of society and it will continue that way until its used to even go to the bathroom.
ReplyDeleteI think that scientist should be responsible for what they discover or create. Wether its good or wether its the worst idea invented. It could be that it seems stupid not but comes in handy in the future and someone else"discovers" iwhen really its been thought before. Also if it turns out to be something bad that is said to be good we can know who it was who said what and not just let them walkaway. Scientist work hard for their experiments and they should be rewarded and acknowledged.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteYes, scientific knowledge and the discoveries made through technology are given much more credit than the technology used to discover them. When a new species of an animal is discovered, the animal is valued more than the technology used to uncover this finding. Same goes for for when exploring space. When the Kepler or Hubble telescope discover a new planet very rarely is the technology given credit, and instead most of the attention goes to the planet with only a mention of the telescope, and that is it. Technology helps us discover the way things in the universe work, but we do not need technology to discover new phenomenons around us, but they are almost essential in order to find out how they work, and their purpose in the world. Science can be pursued without technology, but depending on the research being made, technology at time is almost an essential part to making scientific progress today.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
Scientist should be held morally responsible for their discoveries if they willingly chose to research, invest money, and time to discovering whatever they had discovered. In science there is a grey area in which morals fall upon in the field of science. With every new discovery, this is a sign of growth in the knowledge we have for the world, and universe around us. At the same time this discovering can be put to bad use in which not only goes against people’s morals, but can affect others around them.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteFor the masses, scientific knowledge is only valued because of the technology it produces. While the scientist working in the field may value their "art" for more than material gains, the average Joe does not care care about Biotech engineering unless it makes them live longer. For the Americans wanting more STEM (Science Technology Engineering Mathematics), they desire it so they can lead the world in technological development, rather than an actual interest in the studies. The people funding the scientific research spend their precious resources because they want solutions to solve so they can make a dollar. Aside from the odd billionaire philanthropist, this rings true in most scientific research development.
While natural curiosity can and should occur when learning new things, they take a back seat to profit. If we removed new technological benefits from the equation, we would likely see the interest in multiple fields of study just flat line.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
Scientist should not be held morally responsible for application of their discoveries. Their inventions and ideas are simply tools that are up to the humans who are using them. If a man kills another man with a firearm, does one hold the gun responsible? No one is forcing people to use their inventions and if the masses find a way to twist it for some demented purpose, then they are at fault.
Human values and morality are subject to change with advancing technology. For example, during the industrialization period, there was a need for more workers. Thus women were thrust from their homes and into factories to work. Gender roles that had existed for hundreds of years disappeared virtually overnight! Some areas are morally unacceptable and should not be researched like torture though.
Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteI think that scientific knowledge is valued for its own sake, such as in the minds of experts and people incredibly knowledgable in the fields of science. For instance, in medicine, not all science requires technology. Medicine is considered one of the greatest and progressive sciences in our society today, both with and without technology. Of course, scientific knowledge is valued more with the technology it makes possible, but as that states itself, the technology would not be present without the extensive scientific knowledge that exists behind it. Furthering science at this point without technology seems like a difficult task. I think that to a certain extent, sciences can be improved without technology, but simply in different and creative ways. Logically speaking, I believe technology would be most efficient and useful.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
I believe that people should only be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries if they created/discovered something for a specific and predetermined purpose. For instance, (I watched this on an episode of Forensic Files) if someone creates an apparatus designed to burn well and destroy houses/stores, they are morally responsible for any damage that apparatus causes. But, the other item that helped the apparatus work so well was foam mattresses, so the apparatus would be lit on top of a foam mattress, which created a bigger and better fire. Holding the creator of the foam mattress morally responsible for this instance would be ridiculous, because this was not at all the intention of their invention, which realistically has a much more practical use. Technological advances definitely challenge ethics within our society, and I believe that every day the boundaries are pushed further and further (ex. cloning). To my knowledge, there is no area of scientific knowledge morally unacceptable to study. However, in some people’s opinions this may be false when it comes to actual application of knowledge, such as altering genetics, cloning, or even the practice of medicine.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteI believe that scientific knowledge is mainly valued for the technology or other creations it makes possible. Although humans managed to split an atom and create a massive explosion, it's creation led to the two bombs dropped on Japan, and although the knowledge of splitting the atom is valued, the technology behind the bomb is valued all the more. In this day and age, any advancement of science must use technology in some way or form. However, science can be pursued without any technology, yet it will limit how in depth the scientific knowledge can be created. One can observe the stars or life grow, however without technology science is somewhat limited.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
No scientist should ever be held accountable for the application of their discoveries. Scientists set out to create and explore something new, and anything discover, whether dangerous or not is very much a important and essential addition to the vast net of human scientific knowledge. That being said there are a few exceptions: Scientists who set out to create something with the intent of harm or terrible deeds SHOULD be held morally responsible. If a scientist creates a WMD with the intent of killing mass amounts of people, of course they should be held responsible, yet the creator of the rifle should not be held responsible for the death of billions. It would be absolutely true to say technological advances drive changes in values and morality, as smartphones have changed everything that society was. Smartphones have molded us to be less social, and more cruel online as anonymous power leads morals down the shitter.
ReplyDelete1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
Scientific knowledge seems to be developing a focus on technology and products rather than its own sake. With all of the popular gadgets and inventions being pumped out in this new era, scientific discoveries and knowledge are being pushed aside in order to compensate for the shift towards items that can immediately better our daily lives. Most human sciences are pursued without technology because they rely on observation and analysis rather than running experiments.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
It depends on the situation because if the scientist intended to do something bad, they should be responsible, but if another person used the scientist’s discovery to do something bad, it isn't the scientist’s fault. That probably could've been worded better. Technological advances change values and morality. An example of this is the arms race during the Cuban missile crisis. Countries kept developing technology to the point where the push of a button could wipe out a huge percentage of the earth’s population. This area of scientific knowledge is in no way morally acceptable. The ease of detonation and detachment of emotions involved changed the values and morality of individuals.
1) the only people that seem to truly value the science and discoveries found throughout the World are the scientist themselves. We as a civilization seem to depend more and more on technology and value it more than anything else. So as we move forward not sure of the human race seems to be gravitating further and further toward the technological world. This in turn basically decides what is scientifically valued.
ReplyDelete2) Scientists should be praised when praises are due but when someone else takes their findings and research and applies them poorly and miss uses them they should not be held accountable for the immorality and improper actions of the other person.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteScientific knowledge in my opinion is really only valued for the technology that it makes possible and the cures and methods that result from the scientific knowledge. As a society we strive to better the standings of ourselves and make life as simple as possible with little effort. To do this, we use scientific knowledge to create machines and technology that help accomplish this goal. I think that the true basics of science can be discovered without technology, however, nowadays it is seemingly impossible to discover some new scientific knowledge without the use of modern day technology.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
I think that there are many areas of scientific knowledge that are morally unacceptable. If the reasoning for putting in so much effort and resources into a new scientific discovery is to create destruction to society or is not or the benefit of the greater good, then I agree that some scientific knowledge is morally unacceptable. I believe that scientists who by their own will create or discover a scientific knowledge, it is then their responsibility for the outcomes and usage of this scientific knowledge.
1. Scientific knowledge is absolutely valued more for the technology that it makes possible than for its own sake. Funding for the sciences is so scarce that it most often comes from companies interested in technological development, and they will therefore only fund projects that will further their own agendas. Generally the only science that receives funding apart from that which would further technology is eye-catching pop science. There is no context in which the fact that humans can taste garlic with their feet is useful, other than that apparently the study was interesting enough to receive funding from some party that deemed it worthy. Other science that is actually god science, but might not have an immediate technological impact, should be pursued, but is often not in favor of ridiculous popular science studies like the one above.
ReplyDelete2. Scientists should be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries to the extent that they were aware of the ramifications of said discoveries. For instance, the scientists on the Manhattan project absolutely retain the moral responsibility for the thousands killed with the atom bomb because they were acutely aware of the kind of weapon they were creating. The inventor of the automobile, however, cannot be held totally responsible for the environmental havoc that such machines have wrought because he had no way of knowing the consequences and was ultimately trying to improve lives, not end them. Technological advances are certainly some of the factors in changes of values in morality. The invention of the atom bomb, to keep with the theme, entirely altered the way that people conduct warfare and the way in which we view weapons. These kinds of weapons, which are designed not to win wars but to maximize casualties, are considered morally reprehensible.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteI believe that scientific knowledge is valued predominantly for the technology it can make possible, but can also be valued for its own sake. Scientific knowledge must serve a purpose to be valued, but the purpose of knowledge is not exclusively technology. Discoveries involving human behaviour (like sleep studies) cannot necessarily be used for technological purposes, but also as a contribution to the understanding of human behaviour. The vast majority of scientific knowledge does have the potential for technological advances or the promotion of a product, because in order to fund a project it is vital for the project to serve a purpose for a benefactor. Technology is often required to pursue scientific knowledge. Technology can be defined as human invention and can even apply to simple tools like pencils, and so it is difficult to exclude this broad category from scientific research. If technology is defined as tools which require electricity, then science can take place without them. There were scientific breakthroughs before electricity, and even before basic tools were made. The knowledge that the sun will rise and set is a scientific discovery that requires only eyes. Scientific knowledge is a boon to technological innovation, but tech is neither the exclusive purpose of science nor the only means of accumulating scientific knowledge.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
Scientist should not be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries. Scientists cannot be held accountable for the actions of others. Many scientific discoveries can be used for either beneficial or malicious purposes, and to hold scientists responsible for the possible negative outcomes will also stifle the pursuit of knowledge for the good ones. Technology can drive values and morality, because as technology improves questions of morality can become increasingly complex. If technology is ever developed to, for example, duplicate the mannerisms of a dead person (pure sci-fi currently), we will need to decide how to ethically deal with this new technology. Social media as an application of technology has undoubtedly altered values for better or for worse. Robert E. Kahn and Vint Cerf, the creators of the internet, should not be held responsible for the malicious portions of the internet. The same is true for other branches of technology and science.
Scientists must stray away from areas of science considered morally unacceptable. These areas change over time (Da Vinci broke the law to study human anatomy), but there are some that are undoubtedly morally reprehensible. Human experiments like those performed by Josef Mengele are unequivocally immoral. The pursuit of knowledge is vital, but when it comes at extensive cost of human life it is immoral.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteI think that in our modern society, scientific knowledge is valued more greatly for the technology it makes possible. Although many individuals value the pursuit of scientific knowledge for its own sake, those who provide funding, such as government programs or private businesses, are more often only interested in the technology it would make possible. New technological developments can lead to profit, military advantage, greater efficiency, and thus benefit those who are funding scientific research. For those seeking to profit from scientific knowledge, technological developments become a greater priority than the satisfaction of the pursuit. However, on a more individual level, there are many people who value the pursuit of scientific knowledge more. Driven scientists and mathematicians mostly care for the knowledge they generate and for the pursuit itself more than how their discoveries might turn into technologies for profit. Although the natural sciences can be studied without technology, valid, accurate, and complex experimentation requires the use of technology. For example, someone might be able to dump some baking soda in vinegar and exclaim that they have just studied chemical reactions. However, to follow the scientific method and produce a valuable study, one must use at least some form of technology, whether as basic as a scale to measure mass, or the Hubble Space telescope, or a rocket capable of transporting people into space.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
Scientists should not be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries unless they are entirely aware of how their discoveries are going to be used. Many scientists make discoveries that have no direct way of harming the world around them or are not intended to be used to do so. However other people can use their discoveries to develop immoral applications. Although these scientists should not be considered guilty for the applications they had no knowledge of or control over, some scientists are aware of how their discoveries will be used. For example, the scientists contributing to the Manhattan Project knew that the bomb they were developing would inevitably be used to harm other people. These scientists that know the immoral applications of their discoveries should be held morally responsible, though not quite with such judgment as the people who directly employed it for immoral purposes. Technological advances greatly contribute to changes in morals in values. For example, the deployment of the atomic bombs in Japan allowed the Cold War with the constant threat of nuclear war to occur, as people accepted the use of such horrific military technologies. Also, smart phones, with their instant access to social media has changed the way people value relationships, where a "friend," like a Facebook "friend" is given the title of a person that is well known and significant, even if no true information is known about him or her. The pursuit of scientific knowledge is always important, but when it comes at the expense of human lives, then the area is morally unacceptable. For example, development of military technology can slip into being immoral because the purpose of military technology is to seek weaknesses in opposing forces and destroy the enemies in the name of the country that designs them. These weapons can kill both soldiers and civilians and are therefore immoral.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteHow you value scientific knowledge is a personal choice. Like all learning, science can be studied and learned through a focus on theory without a need for application but in doing so we have to somewhat ignore its uses. So yes, if we are interested in science for the sole reason that we love to learn and that this exploration of how the world works is fascinating then we can definitely pursue science without technological motivation. Ultimately, our reasoning behind why we want to learn and what we find interesting in the subject and is wholly defined by our opinion.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
As bad as it sounds, in this situation scientists are no more than tools. While yes, it is their choice to work for someone or to create a weapon, the responsibility lies with the person pulling the trigger. As Shakespeare's Hamlet once said "nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so". The crime lies in the intention and while scientists may provide more technology and temptation for violence, the people who choose to use it must take responsibility for the repercussions, the violence is their action and the scientists could be ignorant of it. Knowledge in and of itself is without moral constraint, it existed long before humans and is independent of our rules, it is the human use of this knowledge that is morally questionable and needing to be censored; knowledge will continue to exist regardless of what ethical laws we attempt to chain it in.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDelete-In my opinion, scientific knowledge seems to be primarily focused on technology rather than its own advancement. As humans, we strive to find the quickest, most simple way to get things done. In order to accomplish this, we are constantly developing and innovating new software and technology that allows us to live a simpler, easier life. My personal belief is that science certainly can be pursued without the use of technology, however at this day in age, it is becoming nearly impossible to make new scientific discoveries without the use of technology.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
- I believe that scientists should not be held completely accountable for their applications to science. You cannot simply hold scientists accountable for other people's actions or behaviors. Most scientific discoveries or creations are intended to benefit others, and to hold scientists accountable for the discoveries that went wrong accidentally is just immoral. This would also ultimately prevent scientists from furthering their knowledge to try and make new discoveries because they would be too afraid of doing something wrong and being completely blamed for it. The only exception to this would be if the scientist was intentionally using their discoveries for negative reasons.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that makes it possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteI believe that science today is more valued based on the technology that makes it possible because technology itself is highly valued in our society. When we read about experiments or research papers, we hear more about the technology that made it possible rather than the experiment itself. This is because there has been much more attention on technology and how it is increasing and benefitting our society, so we tend to talk more about it due to its increase in popularity. Scientific knowledge can be valued for its own sake, and it is, it just is not valued as highly as the technology behind it. Science can be pursued without the use of technology and it is pursued, we just tend to not hear about it as much. When it comes to the more natural phenomenons, we can learn more about them without using technology and base it solely off of more practical experiments. Even though it can be done, our society tends to focus more in the science that can be pursued through technology.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
When it comes to scientists and their responsibilities of their discoveries, I believe that to some extent they should be held accountable for how their discoveries are applied, but at the same time it is not fully their decision as to how a discovery is used. If the scientists use their own discoveries, then they should be held accountable for how they are applied. But if scientists just discover, but do not apply then they should not be held morally responsible to some extent. Scientists cannot control how people use the knowledge they discover, so they are not held for that, but it is their fault that they discovered it. Technology definitely changes in values and morality because it changes what our society focuses on. Today, due to all of our new technological advances, privacy is a big issue and how people have access to all information. But before cell phones and all of these data bases were created, privacy was not an issue. There are areas of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable. I believe that any sort of science or experimentation that brings harm to humans or living, breathing, and conscious creatures is morally unacceptable because you should not knowingly harm something and bring it pain just for the sole purpose of science.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteScientific knowledge is valued for its own sake. The technology that makes it better is a plus, and makes Scientific knowledge easier to obtain and use. Scientific knowledge will always be researched and looked for. The technology that is created after the knowledge is found is just technology and not valued. The scientific knowledge will be taught and talked about after it is discovered. The technology will just be used with no second thought. There are a bunch of sciences that can be perused without technology theses sciences you need to observe. Current technology helps scientists find scientific knowledge a lot faster than without technology. Although a lot of sciences today need technology for example cancer needs technology in order to find a cure and see the cancer.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
Scientist should be held morally responsible for the application of their scientific discovery. They discovered the science they should not let it destroy anything, or be used to an individual persons gain. Technology definitely changes the moral and value beliefs, because of telephones people are easier connected together enough so that face to face conversation is not valued as much. The creation of the atomic bomb also may or may not have changed peoples moral beliefs. The morality of a science is distinguished by each individual persons beliefs.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteI believe that a lot of scientific knowledge now that is most highly praised is when it is applicable with technology in the human world. Of course there are more and more discoveries each day, such as the recent discoveries of new elements, however it is never front page news unless it is applicable with technology. Many discoveries are taught in schools, however funding for science is determined by which discovery will profit the human existence.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
Scientists should be some what responsible for their discoveries. It is difficult to debate whether scientists should have complete control over their discoveries, because on the one hand if it is a discover that could benefit mankind, such as the cure for cancer, and they withhold it from public knowledge then it will be conceived as unjust. However discoveries such as weapons are extremely sensitive in that terrorist groups could come into contact with this information and use it to reek havoc. However, then the knowledge of weapons could also be contained only within one country which could lead to a world dictatorship. There are also some discoveries that are morally corrupt, such as the creation of clones, since it would technically be slavery.
1. I think this question is completely up to the person that you ask. There is no one answer for this. If you are a business man that is just looking for another buck to put in his pocket, then you probably couldn't care less about research that just serves to answer a question. But, if you are a scientist who is passionate about his work, then the money doesn't matter to, you want answers, you want results, you want to further our scientific progress for the sake of science itself. The problem is that those scientists who only want to answer questions don't get funded very often, so when it comes down to it. The economy will normally answer that scientific knowledge is only useful for the technology it allows. People are greedy and if what you are doing doesn't make them money, then what makes you think they'll want to pay for it? Don't be stupid!
ReplyDelete2. Of course not! Are you kidding me? There are many creations out there that are definitely not used as the creator may have imagined at the time. If I created a new serum that is used to cure acne, but may be able to kill someone if mixed with the right chemicals, what makes it right to blame me for something someone else did without my consent. For the next question, just imagine having slaves today. You couldn't because the rapid spread of ideas in today's society and the changes that have come with the internet have created a world that responds very quickly and very harshly to anything that they don't like. Do you think that if the internet was created, people would still appreciate slaves, even when they have full pages of information informing them on anything they may not have known? An area that is morally unacceptable to most people is eugenics, but they are overreacting to something that could really propel the human race into the future.
Scientific knowledge is pursued mainly for its contribution to technology as opposed to the knowledge itself. Today students and people in general pursue the answer instead of trying to learn and understand the methodology to getting that answer. For instance the grade is more important than the learning or the knowledge gained. This same concept is with science and technology today. People care more for the benefits it brings and how it can affect society as a whole versus the actual knowledge. I am sure there are some sciences that can be pursued without the use of technology however society today has grown dependent of technology. So even if there is a way for new sciences to be discovered without technology that wouldn't necessarily be the way in which people discover it. People now a days would most likely use technology even if it weren't necessary.
ReplyDeleteNo scientists should not be held accountable for their discoveries because they merely are the ones to discover it, not make it up. Technology changes values and morality to a large extent. A lot of people today value what the discoveries will get them; it is a competitive world and a lot of people are in it to win it so to speak. The area of scientific that is morally unacceptable is the knowledge of things like climate change. What is morally unacceptable about it is when one has the knowledge of it yet they don't do anything about it.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteScientific knowledge should be valued for the sake of it but in our society the technology is valued more. The scientist's hard work and dedication to their subject should be recognized and honored however in today's world this is untrue. People only care about the technology that advances their own personal knowledge or agenda instead of thinking about how it got to them in the first place. I do not think there is realistically any science that does not/can not use technology. Technology is so immersed on our culture that it would be impossible to find or create a science where technology wasn't involved somehow.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
Scientists should not be held morally responsible for the outcomes of their discovery if that was not the intended use. If a person takes a scientific breakthrough and manipulates for bad then that scientist should not be deemed the bad one. The creator of the evil byproduct should be held responsible and receive the consequences of the product. Technology most definitely drive changes in morality and values. Technology allows world wide communications and bring new ideas, good and bad, to light. These shared ideas can promote immoral behavior and change the way younger generations see the world and their morals. I think that sciences involving the torture or harm of innocent creatures are unacceptable and morally wrong.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteScientific knowledge is now progressing to an era where it is valued more for the technology that it makes possible. Technology is what drives the people of the century to strive for greater discoveries. Discovering new technology through these scientific knowledge to become known for the best new invention or finding something no one else has before. The natural sciences can be pursued in depth through the use of technology. It would be difficult not to use technology in the sciences because they go hand in hand. One cannot discover the various details to a minute degree without technology. With the sciences it is imperative that we be detailed and as correct as can be to value any discoveries made.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
Scientists should not be held morally responsible for the application of their discoveries. Once a discovery is made it is in the hands of the beholder to decide what to do with the discovery. It is not the will of the scientists that dictates any use of the discovery by another party thus is it completely out of the scientists control. It can be said that technological advances definitely hold questions to moral values in the field of science, is it morally correct to invent weapons of mass destruction that carry the capacity to wipe of every single living organism off the face of this planet? The scientific knowledge of gene coding and creating a perfect baby seems to defy the natural process of the beauty that comes with conceiving naturally and what it is supposed to be.
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteI don't think its impossible to pursue science without technology, I just think its just probably really hard to. Technology isn't just computers and robots and other things that have to do with electrical stuff, technology is something that man kind has made themselves. The wheel was man made therefore a technology. And from the wheel we went onto other inventions that helped us gain knowledge about the sciences. But we had to start somewhere.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
I don't think scientists should be held morally responsible for the application of their discoveries. They are merely being scientist and doing their job. To discover and create new things, whether it be helpful or not. When they do discover something classified as "unmoral" then them and/or group should decide what to do with the new found information.The outcome (during the process) is out of the scientist control. It can be said and justified that technological advances definitely hold questions to moral values in the sciences. There is a lot of things that could be considered morally wrong when it comes to science, theres cloning and then there's fetuses made in a tube. This is all "unmoral" but to whom? The religious people? And who's to say that their religious belief even exist? And if they don't exit, what are we hurting ?
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteI think that the reason scientific knowledge is valuable is because of the contributions it can make to technological advancement, the epicenter of our society today. This especially pertains to the area of knowledge of natural science with regards to medical advancements and solutions to sustainability issues through inventions created with the knowledge of new technology. This question also pertains to the area of knowledge of human sciences. Scientific knowledge does not pertain directly to technological advancement for this area of knowledge because it centers more around the decisions people. This allows for growth in a general sense as to concepts of human tendencies.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
Scientists definitely need to be held morally and ethically responsible for their discoveries, especially through the application of these discoveries. This has become more and more relevant as science understands more about DNA and how to change people's DNA, perhaps for the benefit of preventing a disease when someone is a baby, to potentially being able to control how this baby looks and what their intelligence level is. Technological advances such as this shape our society's moral and ethical values significantly because of the correlation they have with questions about ethics and how much humans should interfere with our own nature: at what point do we stop?
1. Is scientific knowledge valued for its own sake or more for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology?
ReplyDeleteScientific knowledge in this day and age in mostly valued for the technology that it makes possible. Our society is currently in a technology craze, where every consumer wants to have the newest and coolest technological equipment. In addition, science allows humans to make technological advances in medicine, treatments, and energy efficiency among many other things. I think this is pretty clear so I'm no going to pointlessly elaborate, but there is one interesting part to this question and that is the idea of scientific theory. We are part of a world that is full of curious human beings and every time a new viable theory for something we cannot yet explain surfaces, it is the fascination and focus of many. In this way, science can be used theoretically to come up with new theories that explain things that we have not yet explained and this in no way revolves around technology. Saying this, I am thinking about things like quantum mechanics and relativity, where the theory is incredibly fascinating and could one day lead to incredible innovation.
2. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries? To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality? Is there any area of scientific knowledge that is morally unacceptable?
I think that to some degree scientists should be held morally responsible for their discoveries, but also at the same time, a discovery no matter what it is is valuable regardless of whether or not it has a positive impact. in regards to this question, the atomic bombs dropped at the end of WW II immediately come to my mind. Discovering how to manipulate atomic theory is incredibly useful, but did cause a lot of harm. I think there should be a part of government that holds scientists ethically responsible for their discoveries and the applications of them because inherently scientists will not always do is themselves. Technological advance drastically changes values and morality, this being especially evident in the ever so popular platform of social media. Cyber bullying is a real issue. I think knowledge in any area is morally acceptable, it is the responsibility of scientists and governments to ethically hold themselves and society to high ethical standards. There is another more complex argument to this that is much more interesting in arguing the opposite and discussing human nature and inability to control temptations, but that can be discussed at a different time.