Science and the Human Being

Research record

Science is one of the most powerful systems of knowledge in human history. Modern medicine was profoundly changed by communication, agriculture, energy, transportation, physics, and cosmology. But the power of scientific knowledge does not automatically give moral direction. What is possible and what should be done are different questions. The power of science lies not only in fact-gathering but also in public experimentation, measurement, recursion, mathematical modelling, hypothesis-research, and the critical community. For this reason, parallel philosophies do not treat science as a single entity. The scientific method holds special public authority in empirical questions of nature. However, the scientific community is also a human institution, and conflicts of interest and bias are possible, so review is necessary. Biology can tell how genetic traits are transmitted; it does not tell who society values more. Neuroscience can describe decision-making processes; it does not automatically determine penal justice. Science strengthens the factual basis for moral judgments, but not the whole source of value. Nuclear science is useful in both energy and medicine, as well as in destructive weapons. Biologics are a means of treatment as well as an abuse for discriminatory genetic politics. Artificial intelligence can enhance aid learning and discovery, as well as be a tool for surveillance, deception and manipulation. Technical ability is not a moral license. Expertise in complex scientific questions is essential; however, delegating public policy solely to experts would pose democratic problems. Experts can only suggest possible solutions; civil society is asking the same price-questions as risk-admitting, profit-releasing, and loss-making. Appropriate arrangements add expert knowledge and democratic accountability. Scientism, seeing the success of science, assumes that science alone will answer all worthwhile questions. Anti-science can, in turn, dismiss scientific evidence as mere hearsay. Parallel philosophy avoids both: accept the evidence-discipline of science but understand its limitations. If the results of a study are not reproducible by an independent team, the cause may be deception. Smaller samples may be due to selection bias, imprecise methods, or statistical randomness. Reproduction is not an insult to original research. part of collective error-correction. Methods and data should be kept as open as possible in the event that negative results are published. Not all areas reproduce in the same way. Historical events cannot be deduced again, but source-methods and analysis can be examined independently. Indicators are chosen to measure intelligence, poverty, health, or happiness. Indicator does not change the result by itself. which side counts and which misses. Policy can be blind without measurement, but numbers alone are not the whole truth. Conceptual definitions add to the reliability of the measurement and the experience affected. Once an indicative goal has been made, the organization can improve upon it and discard the original goal. Multiple measurements and independent reviews are required. Research on a disease, technique, or field is not just an abstract sequence of truths; money affects markets, states, and public sentiment. Problems that the poorer community has may decrease its economic attractiveness. Credibility is lost if the financier dictates the outcome; however, societal preferences in question-selecting are valid. Conflict of interest should be declared, freedom of research and publication of results protected. Citizens should have a voice in the use of public funds, but popularity should not end difficult original research. Balance short-term use with long-term knowledge. If human behavior and happiness were scientifically understood, morality would also be deducible from facts, such is the claim. Science provides important evidence about the consequences of harm and human needs. But they want to make sure it 's fair, not automatic. Desires can be made up of misinformation, fear, or dominance. The value-struggle demands an argument of equality, freedom and distribution.

Structured debate

Pūrvapakṣa

Ethics is up to the individual. Science is only objective, so ethics must decide.

Uttarapakṣa

Science provides disciplined knowledge of objective facts; however, questions such as " What are the risks? " and " What are the rights? " demand a moral-political justification.

Parallel conclusion

Moral philosophy is not the enemy of science, but its necessary companion. The Parallel Philosophy Sutra: Learn rigor from science in the matter of evidence; do not lose sight of the question of dignity and justice in the matter of value.

Section index

1. 59.1 The cognitive power of science
2. 59.2 The value will not be automatically extracted from the data
3. 59.3 Bi-usable Knowledge
4. 59.4 Expertise and democracy
5. 59.5 Scientism and anti-science
6. 59.11 The Crisis of Regeneration
7. 59.12 Measurement and the Human Concept
8. 59.13 Funding and questioning of science
9. 59.14 Preface: Science itself will give moral direction
10. 59.6 The institutional ethics of science
11. 59.7 Human participants in the research
12. 59.8 Science and communication
13. 59.9 Citizen science and local knowledge
14. 59.10 The Joint Judgment of Science and Value

Cite this record

Gajendra Thakur. “Science and the Human Being.” Videha Digital Research Archive: Mithila–Vajji–Anga. Videha — https://www.videha.co.in/ · ISSN 2229-547X · GitHub mirror: https://videha-ejournal.github.io/videha/ · Digital Research Archives on GitHub: https://github.com/videha-ejournal. https://videha-ejournal.github.io/mithila-vajji-anga/records/idea/philosophy-59/