reply to post by Aresh Troxit
The problem is a lack of ethics. Science and humanities that teach ethics are split areas of study, and that suits the power quite well.
Students noticed this in the 1960s, when they realized that many US and Western campuses were deeply involved with military research. This lead to
major upheavals, and the research then went somewhat underground.
Nowadays there is "popular science", usually faux "green" or alarmist science. It argues for "organic" farming, which critics say hardly fed the
world a century ago and will bring the majority of the planet to starvation. Or consider how DDT was banned on the false premise of "The Silent
Spring", leading to the resurgence of mosqito populations and millions of deaths from malaria.
Science itself is neutral. At least in the West people live longer, healthier lives because of scientific advancement.
The problem is that we struggle with a number of issues on which science has no clear answer as yet. The more it advances, the more questions are
But I also second a previous post - one can be a cold, clinical sociopath to practice science, and many are co-opted to find pre-agreed upon
The holocaust dashed the hope of modernism - the idea that science would only benefit us. Instead technology resulted in death factories.
Then we got post-modernism, which accepted all kinds of romantic, subjective notions, and even primitivism as equally true and proven discources to
I think the Western world showed its moral indifference to "realpolitik" when it took in several Nazi scientists.
Ultimately science is funded by the ideology that the public tolerates and votes for in democracies. If the government and superstructure is ethical
as a whole, then science will also be ethical. However, few of us are ethical or interrogate ourselves, so what science does really reflects our