Quote from: Poopo No Pico on January 28, 2016, 02:02:31 PM

Quote from: Cadenza on January 28, 2016, 02:00:15 PM

1. defining a new term doesn't change the meaning of the old definition
2. science does not give a damn about the age of an idea, only it's validity proven by experiment, that's what makes it science
3. Dysgenic evolution is technically evolution, but you're bordering on misusing that world completely.

God, you are so fucking retarded.

Let me make this real fucking simple for you:
Literally the very definition of science in picture format. Notice the distinct lack of the word "ethics".

Now answer the question: can you read?

That's a disingenuous oversimplification of science, not to mention that the scientific method is not the same thing as science itself. That you're conflating the two shows how little you actually know about the subject.

Also, see my edit:

tl;dr the only real defintion of science is the systematic study of the universe. The qualifications for science have demonstrably changed over the course of human history.

I have no clue how you arrived at #2 from what anything that I said.

Quote from: Cadenza on January 28, 2016, 02:10:41 PM

Quote from: Poopo No Pico on January 28, 2016, 02:02:31 PM

Quote from: Cadenza on January 28, 2016, 02:00:15 PM

1. defining a new term doesn't change the meaning of the old definition
2. science does not give a damn about the age of an idea, only it's validity proven by experiment, that's what makes it science
3. Dysgenic evolution is technically evolution, but you're bordering on misusing that world completely.

God, you are so fucking retarded.

Let me make this real fucking simple for you:
Literally the very definition of science in picture format. Notice the distinct lack of the word "ethics".

Now answer the question: can you read?

That's a disingenuous oversimplification.

No that's called "the definition of the thing we are discussing". The scientific method is what it is precisely because it's so simple. It works because it's nearly impossible to misinterpret it.

No that's called "the definition of the thing we are discussing". The scientific method is what it is precisely because it's so simple. It works because it's nearly impossible to misinterpret it.

See my edit:

not to mention that the scientific method is not the same thing as science itself. That you're conflating the two shows how little you actually know about the subject.

It's irrelevant that the idea is old, it originated in ancient Greece and has worked ever since.

The definition of science is distinctly different from the qualifications and evolving standards of it.

Quote from: Cadenza on January 28, 2016, 02:10:41 PM

Notice the distinct lack of the word "ethics".

Arguing that science isn't concerned with ethics because a 5th-grader's flowchart of the scientific method doesn't say "ethics" is incredibly facile.

Since you and him both have failed to understand the dictionary definition of the word, of course I'm going to have to resort to simpler means. What part of "Let me make this real fucking simple for you" don't you understand?

Quote from: Turkey Sanders on January 28, 2016, 02:14:25 PM

Quote from: Cadenza on January 28, 2016, 02:10:41 PM

Notice the distinct lack of the word "ethics".

Arguing that science isn't concerned with ethics because a 5th-grader's flowchart of the scientific method doesn't say "ethics" is incredibly facile.

Since you and him both have failed to understand the dictionary definition of the word, of course I'm going to have to resort to simpler means. What part of "Let me make this real fucking simple for you" don't you understand?

Seeing as this apparently isn't clear enough, the dictionary definition of science does not encompass the standards of science.

https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/scientific-method

Quote

A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses:

"Science is only about acquiring valid data that can confirm/disprove hypotheses"
No hypothesis can be positively proven; science seeks to compile evidence against a null hypothesis to establish further evidence of an alternate hypothesis. You demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method by believing it can prove anything; science exists solely to disprove.

I still don't know what this petty argument has to do with your claim that science exists to gather data. As your flowchart pointed out, that's just one of my facets of the scientific method.

Quote from: Cadenza on January 28, 2016, 02:10:41 PM

https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/scientific-method

Quote

A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses:

"Science is only about acquiring valid data that can confirm/disprove hypotheses"
No hypothesis can be positively proven; science seeks to compile evidence against a null hypothesis to establish further evidence of an alternate hypothesis. You demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method by believing it can prove anything; science exists solely to disprove.

I still don't know what this petty argument has to do with your claim that science exists to gather data. As your flowchart pointed out, that's just one of my facets of the scientific method.

No shit that's why I said "confirm" not "disprove". You can confirm a hypothesis but you can confirm that evidence is consistent with your hypothesis (confirming your hypothesis) but you cannot prove that it is the correct hypothesis. The distinction is a subtle one and you've only shown your own lack of understanding by missing it.

Quote from: Turkey Sanders on January 28, 2016, 02:14:25 PM

Quote from: Cadenza on January 28, 2016, 02:10:41 PM

https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/scientific-method

Quote

A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses:

"Science is only about acquiring valid data that can confirm/disprove hypotheses"
No hypothesis can be positively proven; science seeks to compile evidence against a null hypothesis to establish further evidence of an alternate hypothesis. You demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method by believing it can prove anything; science exists solely to disprove.

I still don't know what this petty argument has to do with your claim that science exists to gather data. As your flowchart pointed out, that's just one of my facets of the scientific method.

No shit that's why I said "confirm" not "disprove". You can confirm a hypothesis

No, you can't. This is some grade-A semantics-based damage control. You cannot confirm a hypothesis, as science is founded on the concept that any hypothesis can be overturned by sufficient evidence. Literally anybody who has presented statistical research can tell you that this is a very basic principle of hypothesis testing. And this still has nothing to do with your original statement that the sole purpose of science is to gather as much information as possible.

And on topic, Meta, I'm still interested in hearing about any particular example you had in mind when you made this thread.

Quote from: Cadenza on January 28, 2016, 02:42:48 PM

Quote from: Turkey Sanders on January 28, 2016, 02:14:25 PM

Quote from: Cadenza on January 28, 2016, 02:10:41 PM

https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/scientific-method

Quote

A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses:

"Science is only about acquiring valid data that can confirm/disprove hypotheses"
No hypothesis can be positively proven; science seeks to compile evidence against a null hypothesis to establish further evidence of an alternate hypothesis. You demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method by believing it can prove anything; science exists solely to disprove.

I still don't know what this petty argument has to do with your claim that science exists to gather data. As your flowchart pointed out, that's just one of my facets of the scientific method.

No shit that's why I said "confirm" not "disprove". You can confirm a hypothesis

No, you can't. This is some grade-A semantics-based damage control. You cannot confirm a hypothesis, as science is founded on the concept that any hypothesis can be overturned by sufficient evidence. Literally anybody who has presented statistical research can tell you that this is a very basic principle of hypothesis testing. And this still has nothing to do with your original statement that the sole purpose of science is to gather as much information as possible.

Let's run through a simple experiment
Hypothesis: a capacitor's discharge can be modeled with an exponential function
Evidence: take some measurements with an ammeter and plot them on a graph
Oh what do you know it behaves as expected, hypothesis confirmed. But of course you can't prove that it's actually an exponential curve as you'd have to take infinitely many measurements of infinite precision, and have the data match the theoretical equation perfectly at every point (you should know how functions of a real variable behave), so we can't prove the hypothesis despite it being confirmed.

Semantics are important, this is elementary logic and the foundations of maths and by extension science. Stop misinterpreting your lack of knowledge as my fault.

So, uh... because some people face mistreatment in the world, it's okay if we have a little more of that, so long as we do it with noble intentions? (Intentions aren't the same as results, you know.)

Except that's the opposite of my argument; the point is that we consequentially accept some degree of mistreatment or negligence if the benefits of our practice outweigh the costs.

If you agree that it would be worth performing human experimentation on convicts iff we are reasonably sure it will lead to some significant degree of scientific/military progress and iff just one innocent/wrongly-convicted person dies in the process then we are talking about acceptable margins of error. If you agree that one innocent death is worth the payoff then we are talking only about consequences, and about what an acceptable margin of error in the mistreatment of innocents would be.

Classified or not, do the experiments have the consent of their participants? If so, then yes, of course they're morally permissible. Otherwise, they're obviously not. It's really that simple; the government doesn't have some duty to tell everyone everything.

Quote from: SecondClass on January 30, 2016, 11:23:05 AM

It's really that simple

You already know I don't find the "consent model" of morality to be convincing, in the slightest. Would it be okay to establish a market for organs, so those who want to sell an organ can do? Under the NAP/consent view of morality, it would.

It definitely fucking would. Morality isn't tied to the broader implications of societal concerns, that's ethics. When you're born, the only thing that you own is your physical body. The cells and organs that make you up. You can argue that there are no possessions in life at all, that organisms assign that label to things. But your body is your literal birthright. What you do to it is NO ONE'S decision but your own, period.

Please don't come in here and willingly ignore the sharp divide between the public and private spheres. Of course you shouldn't be allowed to do whatever you want to yourself in a public setting. But in your own home, with only yourself or consenting others, there's no moral OR ethical violation. If your moral philosophy makes no consideration about the inherent right to yourself, then it's a poor moral philosophy.