Ethics and Science

Scientism is the concept that states that science can inexplicably answer everything and that it is the queen of all knowledge. The statement is biased as science is able to explain the objective truth, whereas religion or philosophy can answer the absolute truth. As Gregory Koukl states that, Philosophy and math must come before you can do any science. We cannot put sanction over opinion about ethics its an understood personal belief, not sciences aphorism. From the quotes of some famous philosophers and thinkers we can draw lines between the two different but somewhat interlinked subjects. Heinz Pagal states that, Science cannot resolve moral conflicts, but it can help to more accurately frame the debates about those conflicts.  On the other hand Richard Cabot is of the view that, Ethics and Science need to shake hands.  These quotes clearly define the relationship between the science and ethics and how they can influence each other. George Locke, famous science fiction bibliographer is of the view that science cannot state, What should we do with science He further elaborates that science is one tool that can help individuals achieve certain goals like maximizing happiness, liberty and attaining broader goals. But it cannot help us in distinguishing the best goals, nor can it select the best value.

Ethics and Science
As we can comprehensibly trace out that study of Ethics consist of two divisions one which elaborates moral rules and the other which take account of what is good in its own sphere. Linking the two divisions of ethics with science it is an understood fact that our moral values and rules implemented cannot be justified and proved by science every time and with each and every angle. But in other words this description cannot decline or reject the involvement of science in lining out and driving those moral values. Similarly what is believe to be good in its own account cannot always be good in scientific description and can carry even worse effects if deliberately projected to be proved by sciences laws and formulas.

This vast issue of relationship and relevancy of answers with respect to each other ethics and science is divided into two different thoughts continuity and discontinuity. Continuity theorists have their faith that ethics has its roots deep in science not even in terms of similarities but specifically with its modus operandi i.e. the method of operating or functioning. While the discontinuity theorists rejecting the claim believe that ethics do deal in subjects of objective truths and universal statements but these cannot be prove on the same line as in the subject of science with reasoning. But evaluating these two thoughts a collaborative thought arises about quasi-continuity and quasi-discontinuity which says that ethics and science are equally involved in uncovering new knowledge and discovering new dimensions for their subjects.

Ethically there are certain creations of God which we believe are beautiful but if verified through science can be harmful even for the person stating it beautiful. For example the bacteria are found on the pollen grains if being watched from microscope clearly shows their beautiful and colorful creation and eventually get praises. On the contrary if same bacteria come under scientific study not only its harmful and dangerous nature gets exposed but also through verifications and applying formulas can be turned into a useful medicine.

Ethics, if the above analysis is correct, contains no genuine statements, stating true or false, but illustrate desires of certain and specific mindsets, means it is only concerned with the desires of mankind, gods, angels, and devils, if they do really exist. But Science is the subject involved which can discuss the causes of desires, and the ways to attain them, it cannot narrate ethically correct sentences for the desires to be good or bad. There are so many questions that science has been unable to explain like the basis of accidents, the genetic code basis of humans, and certain events from which human are unable to recover. Furthermore science cannot explain the principles behind moral values, the basis of everyones action and what compels them to carry out a certain deed.

Scientific naturalism and the death of science
Science is a collaborative intellectual mechanism that helps explain functioning of the physical world through empirical investigation and specialized technique analysts.  On the other hand scientific naturalism goes beyond science for its appealing support for rationalism and moral autonomy excluding the basis of supernatural powers and Gods existence. Max Planck further describes the essence of scientific naturalism that, Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination.

Scientific Naturalism
Scientific naturalism states that only scientific knowledge is consistent and science in principle can elucidate everything. However the scientific naturalism concept is widely criticized for its self-defeating, self-refuting and exclusionary basis. The concept fails to cover experiences that make most peoples lives worth living. Furthermore it depends on the future possibilities for its faith to explain everything in coming times. Naturalistic science claims to provide future outlook and insights about love, beauty, poetry, friendship, art and moral values which it is unable to answer currently.

Evolutionary Naturalism
Societies and scientists cannot survive without ethics. Yet naturalism has deprived people of ethics. Naturalists tried to fix this violation but could not deal with the challenges coming from the fast speed of biomedical research. If naturalistic suppositions rule then looking after and caring for babies and older people will be threatened. The following case study gives details about the forces that can reform the law and mortality in the 21st century. Evolutionary naturalism is specific kind of scientific naturalism which tries to clarify different aspects of human behavior with the help of resource to evolutionary explanations, using the means of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Philosopher Michael Ruse exemplifies this approach by arguing his way from evolution to ethics in the following five steps.
It is maintained by Rues in Step 1 that complicated human behaviors like moral decision-making procedures might be inborn. In Step 2, he claims that this inborn nature has or had adaptive value. The chance of genes being passed on to their off-springs is increased. It is proposed by Ruse in Step 3 that the power of the ought that can be understood in ethical dialogue depends upon such inborn biological drives that have come from inherited genes. Morality is a collective illusion foisted upon us by our genes.... the illusion lies not in the morality itself, but in its sense of objectivity. In Step 4 Ruse maintains that biological drives originate ethical desires which are generally in proportion with traditional mortality that promotes the values appreciated by decent people in all countries. In Step 5, Ruse argues that every person has morally bound to assist the process of evolution because it has created moral beliefs present in living beings.
Ruses position has been criticized on empirical and philosophical grounds. Steps 1 and 2 and 4 are related to empirical critique while Steps 3 and 5 are related to philosophical critique. Steps 1 and 2 are possible but poorly supported by experiments. Ruse believes that moral convictions could have adaptive worth but through the rapid process of cultural transmission and not by the slow genetic change. Philosophical issues are mentioned by Ruse in Step 3 which according to Hume and G.E Moore, cannot easily fit within a naturalistic framework. Step 4 highlights the flaw of the naturalistic argument because it is not evident how traditional mortality can be upheld by appeals to inborn nature. Moral decisions are made by human beings. Every person has a different urge to a different thing but no criteria are given by biology for choosing why a single set of urges is more moral as compared to the other. Taking into account Step 5, it seems absurd that humans require influence to aid the process the process of evolution when Ruse has argued in the rest of his thesis that moral principles are inborn. However, the complexity is the transition from biology to morality is highlighted by the sketch of evolutionary naturalism.

Science, Christianity and Nature
Christian scientists believe that God has created and sustained everything. Only secondary causes can be studied by scientists. They believe that scientists can only find out about things that have been created by God. The Bible has not defined any concept of nature. Nature is what God has created. This does not mean that there is something like Christian Science and Christians can share science with non-Christians. Christian scientists do the same as other scientists. Christian scientists will try not to invoke God to clarify something in science.

Christian Responses to Naturalism
Christians have responded to naturalism differently. Christians have tried to quote naturalism with the scientific venture itself which involves the incorrect use of the word naturalism as a synonym for scientific. Scientific naturalism is a philosophy believed just a few scientists. Most scientists think that science cannot clarify everything. Some scientists speak about naturalism to promote it. Some Christians believe that naturalism is of two types one is acceptable and the other non-acceptable. To investigate Gods heaven is not naturalistic. Naturalism and Christian theism are not compatible. God has given greater value to a physically disabled baby than to a healthy lion and decision-making process depends on human relationships.

Naturalism- the Death of Science
It is believed by people that the scientific empire will go on but everything ends including intellectual movements. Logically thinking, it seems like science will never end keeping in mind the latest technologies that have made lives easier. But scientific naturalism gives an insecure base for the future of science. People are compelled to think that the growth of modern science in medieval Europe was supported by justification of human information depending on Christian theism. Since science is based on Gods faithfulness, it is a reliable field of study. But there is no base for the soundness of science in scientific naturalism. Naturalism, as a philosophy gives weak options for the smooth functioning of the scientific world. It has been suggested by proof, which the backlash is progressing in western societies.

Reductionism concept states that everything is sum of its parts. Universal rules indicate that everything is grouped into several levels, while each level has its own structural chunks. Reductionism has three types, theoretical reductionism absorbs one concept into another, that is it helps absorbs one idea into another. Methodological reductionism helps in reducing explanation to its shortest entity possible. On the other hand ontological reductionism states that reality is made up of minimum numbers of substance and entities of various types.

Science has led to the discovery of massive number of discoveries that affect human life. Some of them have become necessities some are mere conveniences of trivial nature. Many of them are based on scientific breakthroughs developed by using technology, are essential machineries for modern day human life. Though medical and biological concepts are still under scrutiny and debate, those dealing with speedy technology and innovation have surpassed human ideas and standards. However none of these innovations can be valued unless human realize the core of what is science.


Post a Comment