A common enough observation. Where’s the problem or argument?
Should science be restrained from providing results with implications on other domains? i.e. should some domains be shielded from criticism? Similarly, should science avoid pushing or pulling certain “narratives”?
Should science be blamed if others use it, correctly or incorrectly, to push “narratives”?
Perhaps the biggest problem with the comment is that it focuses on motives and is irrelevant to the question. Bulverism:
What bearing do some current unknowns have on the reliability of science?
Incidentally, awareness of those unknowns came through science…
“some could argue”
“many say”
I say, again — citation needed. Wikipedia offers help for how to properly cite a source, e.g.:
I would say it depends where you live.
In humans morality and ethics are not just instinctual emotions but rather complex social rules that only exist due to our more complex ability to communicate and have abstract concepts. These ideas can also vary greatly from one culture to another.
IDK about other primates but many animals have no ability to consider and plan for future events either (other than instincts to fatten up for the winter, etc.) and I’d say thats a very important part of human morality too.
I guess my point should be that intelligent life that doesn’t have the any link to biological life on Earth other than us being involved in it’s creation shouldn’t be assumed to have the same deep motivations as us or other animals.
Citation needed to whatever leads you to believe this.
You might look through some of these studies, if you want to test your belief against, ya know, science.
I agree. The more we learn about non-human animals, the more we find that other species have complex emotional lives that often include complex communication and complex social relationships that incorporate decision making based on ethical motivations and delayed gratification to achieve future goals.
As for the statement above claiming we have a “more complex” ability to communicate, with abstract concepts, than other species, so our morality and ethics are different from those in other species, I disagree. We are learning that many animals are able to communicate and perceive reality in ways we cannot. If one assumes our communication abilities give us emotional tools unique to our species (a big assumption not proven empirically), then it must also be assumed that the unique communication abilities of other species give those species emotional abilities and tools that are beyond the capabilities of humans. Animals such as whales and porpoises, for example, have larger brains than we do and communication skills we don’t possess. Could it be that they are capable of emotional lives, including ethical considerations, that are beyond our grasp? We don’t have the evidence to show this now - but we also have no evidence proving our ethical and moral lives are fundamentally different than those of other animals.
Literally any difference in what is acceptable or taboo between cultures, there are far too many to list.
“Honor killings” would be an extreme example.
The concept of “fairness” may be a deep foundational aspect in how humans and other primates act, but the exact point I’m making is that humans have much more complex rules that can vary greatly between cultures (whether large civilizations or even small tribes/groupings of people from very similar demographics). I think that cults or other groups that act very differently from the larger population they exist in are a great example of this as well.
Either way, I think clear links between different species on Earth sharing similar social rules still doesn’t at all suggest that synthetic life would be benevolent or share anything at all with humans, probably the opposite really.
The effects that we, for lack of better terms, call dark matter and dark energy, do not play by the rules of classical mechanics, or even relativity.
However, the observations that led us to come up with those terms play by the rules of the scientific method. Those observations so far seem to be very reliable when repeated by others and when repeated looking at different objects.
I’m glad to see you’re not sure about the 96%. 