Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

A scientist or researcher who sets out to lend credibility to a religious concept, or a scientist who is bent on disproving and falsifying a religion and/or a religious concept?

I pose this question because science and empirical research is about finding out the truth no matter where it leads. So which of these two scenarios do you personally feel is more underhanded, or are they about the same?

equal to me...

Define "scientifically unethical" for me.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
A scientist or researcher who sets out to lend credibility to a religious concept, or a scientist who is bent on disproving and falsifying a religion and/or a religious concept?

I pose this question because science and empirical research is about finding out the truth no matter where it leads. So which of these two scenarios do you personally feel is more underhanded, or are they about the same?

The truth can withstand a skeptic wishing to disprove it, but it is crushed by a person blindly believing something.

Before discussion gets started, I'll point out the difference between the two. Scientists generally can't set out to falsify a religious claim without proper evidence. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's not in their interests unless they actually can disprove it. Because if a scientists bends data to make a point, other scientists can make their careers on proving him wrong. It's a self-correcting system.

The only widespread scientific misuse is that funded by religious organizations to "get science on their side." Right or wrong, fudged data or not, they'll print something that bolsters their cause unless it's instantly recognizable as fabricated (though even that rule is tenuous, since some do publish such laughably false material).

Human bias exists, and evidence can be overturned. But science with an agenda has consequences in the form of risking exposure to your unethical methods. And also exposure to repeated tests from other sources, which always take place before conclusions are drawn, and which will find different results if you fibbed to make a point. Religious "science" is not inherently self-correcting, it's self-serving, and therein lies the difference.

....

To answer your question, it's a subjective question to ask which is more unethical. They're both unethical. That's about as far as we can reliably claim.

I just needed to get my two cents out up there, lest this thread turn into an attack on the scientific process.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Define "scientifically unethical" for me.

Motivated by some political ideology or personal incentive, or anything other than the straight-up truth.

Aka: tunnel vision or confirmatory bias. Like when police zero in on a particular suspect with no evidence; they either have a "hunch" or just want to make an example out of somebody.

Eugenics and Intelligent Design are both good examples.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
A scientist or researcher who sets out to lend credibility to a religious concept, or a scientist who is bent on disproving and falsifying a religion and/or a religious concept?

I pose this question because science and empirical research is about finding out the truth no matter where it leads. So which of these two scenarios do you personally feel is more underhanded, or are they about the same? Well, if his bent on disproving, that's fine. Is the guy set out on lending credibility trying to do so by proving it or just by lending his and science's good name?

Actually, that's a good point bardock. there's nothing inherently unethical about having a goal, religious or otherwise. it's only unethical if you don't properly control your tests, or change the data to meet your expectations.

Because, technically speaking, scientists have to be bent on proving or disproving something before beginning most research.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Motivated by some political ideology or personal incentive, or anything other than the straight-up truth.

Then both are equally unethical. Obviously the idealized scientist who has no political, personal or cultural biases doesn't exist but they are definitely still bad.

If find the implication of the question interesting. It's not very common for scientists to set out with the intent of disproving religion. Actually, a lot of cool discoveries have been made because someone wanted to prove that religion was right.

neither is unethical...

they are human errors and biases and both programs would be violating proper scientific methods, though not in an unethical way.

however, by definition, experiments are designed to try and find evidence against a thesis. thus, if a proper thesis is generated from religious beliefs, a scientist looking for evidence against that belief is doing proper science.

I'd actually contend that it isn't unethical in either scenario, to set out specifically to prove/disprove something religious. It only becomes so if you try to prove/disprove it in spite of the evidence you find. In properly controlled and reported tests, the bias of the scientist is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Digi

Because, technically speaking, scientists have to be bent on proving or disproving something before beginning most research.

scientific experiments are never designed to find evidence that supports a hypothesis. they must attempt to rule out other possible explanations

Originally posted by inimalist
scientific experiments are never designed to find evidence that supports a hypothesis. they must attempt to rule out other possible explanations

Fair enough. But if you're designing tests toward reaching a certain conclusion, but do so in a way that accounts for other possible explanations, reporting your findings isn't unethical if they're true.

Originally posted by Digi
Fair enough. But if you're designing tests toward reaching a certain conclusion, but do so in a way that accounts for other possible explanations, reporting your findings isn't unethical if they're true.

in layman's, no

Originally posted by inimalist
neither is unethical...

they are human errors and biases and both programs would be violating proper scientific methods, though not in an unethical way.

however, by definition, experiments are designed to try and find evidence against a thesis. thus, if a proper thesis is generated from religious beliefs, a scientist looking for evidence against that belief is doing proper science.

The acts themselves aint unethical; its the volition or intent behind the act that makes it moral or not.

If the scientist honestly thinks the truth lies in the pages of the Bible, then so what. But if he just wants to find a way of validating the whole world bowing to Jesus or risk going to Hell, then THAT is crossing the ethical line.

The white guys who came up with Eugenics already thought that Nordics were clearly superior, so then they just needed to find the proof that made something apparant to them a doubtless, concrete fact that can't be argued.

Originally posted by inimalist
in layman's, no

lol, ok, i'll defer to you. I've never had to be ethical in science, outside of high school. You're more familiar with the rules than I. I just feel like if you follow the evidence, and don't jump to conclusions, you can be personally biased but still come up with valid conclusions.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If the scientist honestly thinks the truth lies in the pages of the Bible, then so what. But if he just wants to find a way of validating the whole world bowing to Jesus or risk going to Hell, then THAT is crossing the ethical line.

The white guys who came up with Eugenics already thought that Nordics were clearly superior, so then they just needed to find the proof that made something apparant to them a doubtless, concrete fact that can't be argued.

What if it were true that non-Christians would burn in Hell or that Nordic people were superior and they proved it? Surely then they would have only uncovered a fact.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The acts themselves aint unethical; its the volition or intent behind the act that makes it moral or not.

Actually, ok, yeah, I can agree with this. I guess what I'm talking about is valid scientific results, which can still come about from unethical scientists, not the ethical or unethical nature of the acts themselves.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What if it were true that non-Christians would burn in Hell or that Nordic people were superior and they proved it? Surely then they would have only uncovered a fact.

But they haven't. If a "theory" and it's voyages are launched with a conclusion already in mind and the deliberate omisson and fabricating of facts, then the whole expedition crumbles.

The Nazis concluded that ancient Egyptians were blonde/blue-eyed, and that Mayans must have been taught math and architecture by aliens, because "clearly" nobody who looks like modern Egyptians and Mexicans could have come up with those things on their own. I mean, look at them (that was the mentality). They just couldn't accept that all these brown people were building great pyramids and civilizations while the Nordic Aryans were wearing animal skins, and freezing their asses off in caves while wondering where their next meal would come from.

i dont see any unethical about it.

scientifically unethical to me would be like unwilling human specimen for scientific studies. kind of mad lab mad scientist like what you see in movies.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
But they haven't. If a "theory" and it's voyages are launched with a conclusion already in mind and the deliberate omisson and fabricating of facts, then the whole expedition crumbles.

It's the omission and fabrication of facts that is really bad. Their motivation is only bad in that is increases the chance of ignoring the truth.