rarely form groups for the purposes of supporting one-another unabashedly.
Scientific groups are almost exclusively for the purpose of review and
debate, not for "support".
The greatest checks and balances placed on the scientific community is the
scientific community. Peer review often takes into account the ethical and
moral aspects of whatever is on the table. Just like everybody else
individual scientists have their own agendas, biases, peeves and ignorance -
but as a community the results tend to be surprisingly strong.
Religious beliefs are not particularly "anti-science" in any real sense and
like any other large group many scientists are religious, many not and some
fanatical in either direction.
If you're at all familiar with the peer review process it's often very
emotional and antagonistic. Science, as a discipline, is really trying to
argue its way to truth: but arguing in the very precise bounds of the
Scientific method, peer review and observation. It's actually somewhat rare
to see large science groups coming together like this to stand together on
an issue.
Jim Davis
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 11:01:37 -0500, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of my favorite quotes from Jurassic Park: "Your scientists were so
preoccupied with whether or not they could, they never stopped to think
whether they SHOULD"
>
> It's the job of scientists to continually explore and discover. A group so
singularly minded often times requires some sort of outside checks and
balances to ensure they are considering the morals and ethics of their
activities.
>
> I don't think the Bush administration is a particularly good group to be
doing this monitoring, however, as his deep religious beliefs make him
equally single-minded in the other direction.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
