Are Scientists Less Moral or Honest than Non-scientists?

Do you still beat your wife? Who or what is Shraf's stupid (noun)? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

And get rid of the seemingly endless supply of seemingly irrelevant little quotations, be if from the Bible or from C.S. Lewis.I think your mightly close to a suspension from more than one admin.Adminnemooseus

---

I asked you to briefly run down the steps of the process so I could be reasonable assured that you understand it.Here, let me help you get started;Let's say that I am a Physicist, and I have been doing some research. I have done all of the statistical analyses, written up my results, created the graphs and charts and tables, and now I want to submit it to the pretigious professional peer-reviewed Physics Journal, "Cool Physics N Stuff".What's my first step?

I beg your indulgence in an introductory lesson in logic. I know it is offensive to uncover such base, and despised academic clarity, but it is important.Let's be humorous about it ok? Like Vince Lombardi did when his football team had completely lost sight of the fundamentals.He took them onto the field. Picked up the pigskin, and said "Gentleman... This is a football!" "Am I going to fast for you?"Now if you got the grid I am trying to set in your mind, let me ask a question... What is preaching? It is speaking matter of factly. The same way you do when you speak against preaching. To speak against something, you must by inference (or implication) affirm something else. You must have an absolute with which to anchor it. At the very least, an assumed or tentative absolute. That is the inference!"A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid..."
(C.S. Lewis Christian Reflections)I give illustrations to make my points clear. Funny you called them seemingly irrelevant (a fruedian slip perhaps?).If I am to be suspended, then suspend! Stop with the seemingly and mightly close to threatening language. It is self defeating!Every affirmation is spoken matter of factly. It has to be, or we could not use inference in any logical sense. Speaking 'matter of factly', is known also as professing. It is also called prophetic (though it appears that the former, is not rooted in the latter, at least in the research I am aware of, so the relation is coincidental). It is also called preaching; a title that you reserve for theists. Where one begins and the other ends is a mystery to me. I suppose you are proffesing?If you will permit me, I would love to give an illustration of matter of fact speaking.Matthew 26:63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered. 67 Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him 68 and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?" Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

"God must know, better than anyone, how unfulfilling it is to be right, until it can be shared, with a community willing to accept it it, and enjoy the glory of it."(Rob Lockett)

In a well known trial of a southern pornographer, the defense got one of the plantiffs onto the stand and asked the following questions:Defense: "Have you ever paid to go into an art gallery?"Plantiff: "yes!"Defense: "Have you ever paid to go into an art gallery where portraits by the grand masters were displayed?"Plantiff: "Yes!"Defense: "Have you ever paid to go into an art gallery, where the protraits of the grand masters were displayed, and where some of those paintings depicted disrobed or nude people?"Plantiff: "Yes!"Defense: "Can you please tell the jury why you call that art, and my clients work pornography?"It is a clear case of the defense not seeking truth, but using the closed system bound by time, and structure, and the relevant uneducated faculties of the jury, as a means of stifling a very difficult (almost impossible) philosophical dialog on what constitutes perversion.You are good Shraff... Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

What's the difference between Brad McFall and Rob?Brad's posts are borderline incomprehensible to many, but you still get the sense that there's a point beneath them, if you could just penetrate the language. Rob's posts are perfectly comprehensible, making it completely clear that there's no point to them whatsoever.(With affection to Brad) Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

It's because I'm an A's fan! And insults are the greatest form of flattery. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

"God must know, better than anyone, how unfulfilling it is to be right, until it can be shared, with a community willing to accept it it, and enjoy the glory of it."(Rob Lockett)

I'm sorry, I'm annoyed. I really only have time to lurk at the moment, but this has got my goat...Over on ID/Creationism - Comparison of Human and Chimp Genomes a new member, NewYorkCityBoy, has linked to this: http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htmI'm not sure if this is a well known creationist site or not, I'm no expert. But does Jesus condone the lies, falsehoods, and blatent misrepresentations appearing here?I will simply quote the opening paragraph... it gets much much worse

quote:

---

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory instead of a law.

---

FYI I am a scientist and a Christian, attending a church which is 99.8% Creationist with a congregation of 500...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Power corrupts, and lack of power corrupts absolutely.

​

- Adlai Stevenson

---

The word 'loser' is itself an interesting phenomenon. It assumes the existence of a level playing field, a game anyone can win. This is a cherished American ideal.There's no question that modern democratic societies are the most open societies in history. The world has come a long way from feudal times. For all that, the level playing field remains an ideal.Many people in the world--most, actually--start the game with very little to throw in the pot as an ante. Despite their talents they may find it next to impossible to get a place at the table. Despite playing their best game they may find themselves folding early. It's not a matter of deserving it. That's the math. It can happen to anyone.

quote:

---

Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favour to the skilful; but time and chance happen to them all.

​

Ecclesiastes 9.11 (NRSV)

---

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

NJ appears to be making a side comment to another poster in an offhand/flippant manner. It could very well apply to just people here, as well as just to their debating techniques. It should be noted that at the very least NJ is encouraging the other poster to hear the evo posters out, and clearly states some are on the level.In any case the argument NJ appears to be making is that those in support of evolution (just here or overall) are moral relativists or nihilists and so less likely to be honest, than creationists (or religious people in general, here or overall).The obvious counter is that evos are not inherently atheistic, and even those that are do not necessarily have to be moral relativists or nihilists, and those that are such do not necessarily have to be less honest. For the last group (the most morally free) it will simply be based on temperment or taste... which I might argue is the same for everyone else anyway.Obviously NJ is offbase with the claim.But I am confused with many responses here regarding his claim. With the exception of NWR's plausible (even if questionable) idea that scientists may likely be more moral due to their education/background (likely to weed out those which are less honest), most seem to be drawing some whacky conclusions.Scientists have just as much claim to moral behavior, or legal behavior, than anyone else. It is true that professionally they train for a tighter code (particularly of honesty) while working on certain projects. But that is it. The idea that it rubs off, especially on the rest of one's life seems a bit forced.Its not like they engage in the peer review process for how they will act in their relationships, or whether they will bet heavy on the next ball game, or go to a prostitute, or take some drugs. In particular, their training is not going to effect how they engage in informal debate.I'm not sure about any other people that have worked with, or as, scientists out there, but I have seen them lie, cheat, steal... whatever... in their personal life as well as plagiarize, scream, and even resort to violence in what are supposed to be academic settings.Humans are humans and they remain that way. If training meant anything then you WOULDN'T have the scandals you see coming out of evangelical quarters.Indeed I would argue that secular scientists did more real harm because of lack of honesty within the last 25 years, than creos. US scientists looking for personal accolades, engaged in fraud which held back HIV research at a very crucial juncture. Indeed I might argue that scientists continue to do heavy damage by engaging in social politicking to hold back public testing or public acces to (individual) testing, based on fraudulent arguments, as well as to make some bucks off of HIV.At least religious types have a valid excuse for doing such jackass things.Just like one's own home, people on both sides have to keep cleaning house every day. It doesn't change just because scientists have a better vacuum cleaner to hit hard to reach spots.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Jesus certainly does not condone such behavior, nor does GOD. A very large percentage of Christian Pastors do condone and even encourage such lies though.Sad, isn't it?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yet Holmes goes on to state: Apparently and contradictorily agreeing with NJs claim that at least for the last 25 years 'secular' scientists have been less honest than 'creos.' Or is it done more harm with less lies? Or does this argument include religious scientists, and secular non-scientists? The position is unclear.My question to Holmes is do you agree with NJ or not? Yes or no will suffice, no one is running for political office here to the best of my knowledge. What would that valid excuse be?

I'm not sure how much clearer I could have been. I totally disagreed with NJ.I only went on to question some of the assertions made by others (in response to him) about how science would tend to make one more honest. All I was pointing out was that science does not guarantee honesty and indeed dishonesty among scientists has done more real damage than dishonesty by evangelists. I do apologize that I missed stating evangelists (as a profession) in that sentence of who the secular scientists did more damage than. I was intending to be riffing off of jar's claim.I'm not sure if there were more lies by scientists than creos during that time, all I know is that IF people within the scientific community had not commited their acts (and in a great sense continue to) the world's worst plague would not have grown to its current proportions. At first HIV was thought to exist only in homosexuals and they do not care about homosexuals. Curse from the gods and all. Then when it was discovered that it was sexually transmitted in general, have called for solutions which ascribe to their moral requirements for sex. That would be internally valid.Scientists who have so far botched the handling of HIV have no such excuses, particularly those who have done so for personal gain. Edited by holmes, : by scientists

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

OK, now it is clearer to me what you are saying. Maybe it's just me, but I cant always tell what your position is on various issues based upon the content of your posts. I believe it is better to seek clarity than to run through a dozen posts talking past each other, particularly given our recent experience.For example in stating that the religious have more excuse for poor behavior, I thought you were speaking more globally, than about HIV in particular.As to more harm done, why limit to 25 years? Fifty years ago the Green Revolution got its name, which is estimated to have saved 2 billion lives from starvation. At the same time the Great Leap Forward and then Cultural Revolution started, which is estimated to have eliminated 40 to 70 million lives. One was largely the work of mostly honest (so far as I know) scientists, the other the work of a mostly dishonest quasi-religious cult figure.Just to be clear about my perspective on this issue.I would like to know more about your position regarding how dishonest scientists, rather than, or at least supplemental to, political pressure from dishonest politicians, is primarily responsible for the spread of HIV 25 years ago. If there is a preexisting thread or other evidence could you please point me in the right direction?

Holmes writes: My personal expeience is that while there are a few scientists guilty of such misbehavior, the vast majority are honest, moral, and (mostly) sane. I would even say more honest, moral and sane than the population at large.However, crime rate figures, which are a debatable measure at best of such vague and subjective traits as honesty, morality, and sanity, only indicate a correlation between education levels and crime. For example, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 40% of all offenders lack even a high school diploma.This figure may not even be due to education levels but rather entirely due to matters of poverty, opportunity, and the ability to hire a good defense lawyer.Most the scientists I have known are either at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (such as my sister and her in-laws) or have some association with New Mexico Tech and it's various connected operations such as the Very Large Array Radio Telescope.In my personal experience, I can remember but few incidents of dishonesty related to academic integrity. In all {ABE - but one}, the perpetrator was found out and punished, either flunked or fired.As to their personal behavior characteristics, they range from my pious, teetotaling sister to people that could outparty anyone I have ever met. There have been divorces, both amiable and otherwise, but to no greater extent than the population at large. Generally, I find such scientists to be more intelligent, inquisitive, environmentally-concious, supportive of education and the welfare of children, and indeed honest, than the general population, with some exceptions, particularly among those many individuals who are not scientists that share these characteristics. As to the morality of such behavior, that is a subjective judgment at best.For an example let me share a story that appeared in the Albuquerque Journal several years back. The commentator said that reading the police report for Santa Fe there was a case where a daughter had hit her mother in the head with a brick. On that same day, the greatest crime in the Los Alamos police report was that one duck had been observed chasing other ducks at the duck pond.Anecdotal evidence, yes it is, but evidence nonetheless.Edited by anglagard, : Just remembered one guy who evidently got away with cheating on a test