Just Thinking About Science Triggers Moral Behavior

ananyo writes "The association between science and morality is so ingrained that merely thinking about it can trigger more moral behavior, according to a study by researchers at the University of California Santa Barbara. The researchers hypothesized that there is a deep-seated perception of science as a moral pursuit — its emphasis on truth-seeking, impartiality and rationality privileges collective well-being above all else. The researchers conducted four separate studies to test this. In the first, participants read a vignette of a date-rape and were asked to rate the 'wrongness' of the offense before answering a questionnaire measuring their belief in science. Those reporting greater belief in science condemned the act more harshly. In the other three, participants primed with science-related words were more altruistic."

Comments

I hypothesize..

[Jmc23]

that these researchers falsified this study to detract attention from all their previously falsified studies.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

The falsifiers are just part of the standard deviation.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

"Check out this study, it shows that scientists are more moral than commoners, so I could not have been the murderer. Try questioning the cook, I hear he has a BA in Roman Art, and we all know what kinds of murderers Rome is famous for."

Re:I hypothesize..

[bluelip]

Wish more Democrats in the US thought about science.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Austerity Empowers]

Nobody ever told them that deviating in the standard way isn't as much fun.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Nadaka]

Yea, those outliers are much hotter.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Nadaka]

funny, I wish more republicans thought about science.

Democrats too, but they are only quasi-evil.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that hard to believe.
"Thinking about science" might mean just "thinking rationally", which might make you exclude exaggerated reactions, make you consider better the problem...

Of course, it all depends on the researchers definition of morality...

just defining what morality is might be worth of a study... let alone test it...

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

As you stated, any statistical approach is fundamentally flawed by design.

Re:I hypothesize..

[fahrbot-bot]

funny, I wish more republicans thought about science.

Democrats too, but they are only quasi-evil.

Conversely, one would think that thinking about religion and faith would trigger moral behavior, but, sadly, I haven't found that to (generally) be the case. [ I'm not trolling, just offering my (disappointing) observation. Perhaps I need to meet a different (but not necessarily better) class of people... ]

Personally, I think most politicians only think about money, power and getting re-elected (perhaps the first two are redundant) - for their own selfish desires.

/cynical

Re:I hypothesize..

[Jmc23]

You'll find that thinking about spirituality usually triggers moral behaviour, e.g. Bahá'í , Yoga, Taichi, etc...

Belief in anothers experiences can't compare to belief in your own experiences.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Threni]

> Conversely, one would think that thinking about religion and faith would trigger moral
> behavior

One wouldn't. A 2000+ year old book (older, in some cases) fraudulently constructed by ignorant, illiterate peasant halfwits from a time before justice and democracy is not conducive to challenging beliefs or finding accurate answers to relevant problems. That's why the most religious countries are the most fucked.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFS: "before answering a questionnaire measuring their belief in science"

From TFA:

"It is important to note that âoescienceâ is multi-faceted construct that takes on distinct forms. On the one hand, the scientific style of thinking employed by scientists is unusual, difficult, and uncommon [9]. Although science can serve as a belief system, it is distinct from other belief systems (e.g., religion) insofar as its counterintuitive nature and the degree to which it does not rely on universal, automatic, unconscious cognitive systems [9]; as a consequence, relative to other belief systems like religion, science has few explicit âoefollowersâ."

This is all Very Wrong! There is nothing in science to believe in, it's NOT a belief system. Science and the scientific method are concepts you practice and apply. Whoever wrote this article clearly has huge misconceptions about what science is about.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Jmc23]

Um, regardless of what experiments have been done, and what empirical evidence gathered, science is still a collection of descriptions put forth by humans. Belief in the descriptions is almost implied to the furtherance of the descriptions. Until someone comes up with a new description to believe in, like qm.

Re:I hypothesize..

[LordLimecat]

A 2000+ year old book (older, in some cases) fraudulently constructed by ignorant, illiterate peasant halfwits from a time before justice and democracy

Youre knowledge of history is truly astounding. Do tell, when do you suppose the Roman Republic existed? Or the democratic Greek city-states?

Re:I hypothesize..

[bberens]

Interestingly enough Republicans care a LOT about the economy and historically provide greater funding to the sciences than Democrats because of it. There are a few obvious exceptions like embryonic stem cell research that make headlines but by and large Republicans provide more funding to science. If you don't want to take my word for it youtube search for Neil DeGrasse Tyson talking about it.

Re:I hypothesize..

[dgatwood]

The problem is the type of science that Republicans tend to fund. If it has a benefit to the military or the defense industry, it gets funding. If it doesn't, no money for you. This is something of an exaggeration, I know, but that seems to be the main focus for science funding when they're in office.

The Democrats, by contrast, might give less money in total, but they tend to give that money in areas that benefit all of humanity—solar and wind energy research, for example.

Or at least that's my perception. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, regardless of what experiments have been done, and what empirical evidence gathered, science is still a collection of descriptions put forth by humans. Belief in the descriptions is almost implied to the furtherance of the descriptions. Until someone comes up with a new description to believe in, like qm.

No, you're completely wrong. Science is a methodology based on logic and rational thought used to arrive at a conclusion, Faith (or Belief) simply accepts the conclusion without thought.

To put it another way, if someone makes a claim such as "E=MC^2" and you simply believe it, that's Faith.
If you apply logic, reason, and critical thinking to the claim, and conclude that "E=MC^2"... that's Science.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow seriously?! WTH?! Science is this: hypothesize, perform experiments, collect and analyze data from the experiments, indicate whether the observed data correlates or not with the hypothesis. There's nothing that requires belief except whether the experiements were conducted properly and the data wasn't falsified.

For many simple science that affect our daily lives, we can even conduct the experiments ourselves to confirm the validity.

For more esoteric scientific concepts like atoms, a good scientist should even discourage absolute belief in them, because there is always room for improvement and refinement.

That's the whole fuckin point of science: nobody's asking anybody to believe in anything. It's belief-free.

Re:I hypothesize..

[N0Man74]

funny, I wish more republicans thought about science.

Democrats too, but they are only quasi-evil.

Conversely, one would think that thinking about religion and faith would trigger moral behavior, but, sadly, I haven't found that to (generally) be the case. [ I'm not trolling, just offering my (disappointing) observation. Perhaps I need to meet a different (but not necessarily better) class of people... ]

Personally, I think most politicians only think about money, power and getting re-elected (perhaps the first two are redundant) - for their own selfish desires.

/cynical

Depends on the religion.

For at least one major religion, you don't need morality if you have forgiveness...

Re:I hypothesize..

[RabidReindeer]

funny, I wish more republicans thought about science.

They do. They think it's "a Lie straight from Hell".

I wish I was joking. Or at least that I was quoting a minor fringe Representative.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Nadaka]

Just because a republic claims to care a lot about the economy doesn't mean they do. If that were the case, they would be championing a balanced budget through higher and more progressive personal income and capital gains taxes while reducing corporate taxes and nationalizing healthcare. You know, exactly the opposite of what they actually do. Republican tax policies have been shown scientifically to be quite harmful to economies, but it doesn't matter because fuck the future of America and even the long term survival of mankind, I need a new BMW right now.

Re:I hypothesize..

[narcc]

This is all Very Wrong! There is nothing in science to believe in

Wow, you really really don't understand science, do you?

Start with David Hume then move on to Karl Popper.

You've got an awful lot to learn.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is the type of science that Republicans tend to fund. If it has a benefit to the military or the defense industry, it gets funding. If it doesn't, no money for you. This is something of an exaggeration, I know, but that seems to be the main focus for science funding when they're in office.

The Democrats, by contrast, might give less money in total, but they tend to give that money in areas that benefit all of humanity—solar and wind energy research, for example.

Or at least that's my perception. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.

That's a rather interesting set of views. You could turn that on its head and say that funding military/defense allows for more safety to be instilled on the world (more defense with fewer lives at risk) and do not conflate the ability to go to war, with the desire (i know you are about to). Conversely throwing money at solar and wind energy when it's not economically viable just distorts the market and leads to wasted resources (a pessimistic view, yes, but accurate to the progress thus far).

Re:I hypothesize..

[JestersGrind]

Plus this study doesn't explain evil mad scientists! What about those who use science to achieve world domination?

Re:I hypothesize..

[N0Man74]

Interestingly enough Republicans care a LOT about the economy and historically provide greater funding to the sciences than Democrats because of it. There are a few obvious exceptions like embryonic stem cell research that make headlines but by and large Republicans provide more funding to science. If you don't want to take my word for it youtube search for Neil DeGrasse Tyson talking about it.

What he said was except for the issues that have strong opposition from fundamentalist Christians.

So, aside from the fact that Republicans dislike when Science supports Evolution, that homosexuality is not exclusive to humans and might not be a mental illness, that there might not be mental racial or sexual superiority, that global climate change may be occurring or that it is influenced by man, studying the universe and trying to answer questions about how the universe came to be or how to get off this rock we're on (rather than waiting for Jesus to come fix it), or exploring stem cell research, they are very pro Science.

It's not like they are against anything important, right? I'm sure they are very supportive in improving the displays on our next iThing or other diversion.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that Roman was run by despots and kill people who didn't perform the proper religious sacrofices, right?

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

That very much depends on your definition of faith/belief. My religious belief is well reasoned and supported by evidence and I'm quite sure that if we were to debate that your only major contention with my faith would be the veracity of my evidences. I'd also argue that if that is your definition of faith then modern science is introduced to children as a matter of faith and that you only have true scientific methodology when you reach graduate level studies in science. And rightly so, at our best we only ever do a heuristic approximation of true logic.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

Rome had slaves. Democracy was known at the time of the Greeks but it was not widely practiced in the world in the way it is now.

Re:I hypothesize..

[KeensMustard]

Conversely, one would think that thinking about religion and faith would trigger moral behavior, but, sadly, I haven't found that to (generally) be the case.

Since science is not the converse of religion there is no reason to equate thinking about religion to be the converse of thinking about science.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Threni]

Do tell - if I spoke about red cars, would you assume that I meant that all cars were red?

Re:I hypothesize..

[BasilBrush]

There are a few obvious exceptions like embryonic stem cell research

Why stop at one example? Republicans record is also poor with regard to:
1) Evolution.
2) The science with regard to tobacco.
3) Climate science.

That Republicans with fund research when they think there's a profit in it is no surprise. But there's an awful lot of science that isn't that.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

You're full of shit. "Spirituality" indeed. Navel gazing is no better than believing in a magic sky daddy, and doesn't make one behave better.

Re:I hypothesize..

[BasilBrush]

One of the defining characteristics of science is that it changes and improves in response to new evidence. Even when that seems inscrutable to most people (like QM.)

Beliefs (including but not limited to religions and individual spirituality) on the other hand tend to resist change due to new evidence. Unless and until they become unsustainable even to the most dimwitted person.

Re:I hypothesize..

[BasilBrush]

Wow, you really really don't understand science, do you?
Start with David Hume then move on to Karl Popper.

That's philosophy, not science. (And not even natural philosophy.) They tend to be championed by people that are decidedly ANTI-science. Deniers that like to pretend they are skeptics.

Re:I hypothesize..

[DexterIsADog]

Come on now, the nice congressman deserves a shout out for his extraordinary courage. To wit;

Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior. http://news.yahoo.com/congressman-calls-evolution-lie-pit-hell-175514039.html

It's worth repeating; he believes that (the theory of) evolution, embryology, and (the theory of) the Big Bang are LIES MADE UP BY THE DEVIL.

Look for the video on YouTube. He says these things in front of a wall covered with creepy mounted deer heads.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, sorry, your religious belief is by definition not based on evidence. You can point to something and claim that it's evidence, but it simply is not.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe... that you are a pretentious asshole. Go ahead and deliberately misinterpret the GP. Does that make you feel superior? I believe it does.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

As of right now the ones in DC have to spend around 60% of their day on the phone begging for campaign contributions. If we could make it so you could only use federal funding for their campaign and everyone got the same amount with the caveat that unless you can get something like 5% of the vote you have to pay it back.

Problem is since the citizens united decision that would be impossible since anyone on earth can anonomously dump an unlimited amount of money into any political campaign they like provided they don't talk with the politician's campaign, but it's very obvious who they are backing.

Re:I hypothesize..

[narcc]

Sigh ... I see you have a lot to learn as well.

Do the reading as I recommended. Otherwise, feel free to remain ignorant -- just don't continue to spread nonsense like that around.

You science cheerleaders have done more damage to the public understanding of science than Kent Hovind could ever dream of doing.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Oligonicella]

True. Democracy as practiced by the ancient Greeks would be hard to implement today, what with their not letting women vote and keeping slaves and all.

Re:I hypothesize..

[vriemeister]

Heh, thank god America never did those things.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite, one must be contrite, and resolve to try not to transgress again, in order to receive forgiveness. If you don't mean it, you don't get it.

Re:I hypothesize..

[vriemeister]

Dammit, nevermind. I can't see a joke without help.

Re:I hypothesize..

[khallow]

If that were the case, they would be championing a balanced budget through higher and more progressive personal income and capital gains taxes while reducing corporate taxes and nationalizing healthcare.

Eh, I see that as having at least a moderately negative effect on the US economy. What's the case for paying more taxes or having a more progressive income tax when a lot of the concentrating of wealth is due to how those taxes get spent?

And nationalizing healthcare US-style is likely to be an epic fail, based on what's gone before.

Republican tax policies have been shown scientifically to be quite harmful to economies

It's possible to show scientifically all sorts of things. The most notorious examples are scientifically showing that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

Only have to back 150 years in this country to see that time again.

Re:I hypothesize..

[fahrbot-bot]

Conversely, one would think that thinking about religion and faith would trigger moral behavior, but, sadly, I haven't found that to (generally) be the case.

Since science is not the converse of religion there is no reason to equate thinking about religion to be the converse of thinking about science.

In general, I would agree and that I selected a poor choice for my words, but in the political context (Republican vs. Democrat) of the post to which I was responding, science (scientific understanding) and religion (religious - or personal - beliefs) are often at odds or, at least, played against each other - to the detriment of us all, I believe. There is no doubt that science and religion can coexist within and among reasonable people. Unfortunately, I don't think there are many of those representing us.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a democracy nonetheless, and at various periods far superior to our own in many respects. You seem to also be presuming that modern democracies are somehow more inclusive, but by what criteria? Certainly by gender, but what about participatory democracy? Most modern democracies are structured differently. In Ancient Athens, for example, random citizens were appointed for temporary periods to public offices. That would be unheard of today, and most people would claim that it infringed their liberty.

The last vestige of participatory democracy left is the jury system, and most modern countries have dispensed with it entirely, with the U.S. being a notable exception, mostly because it's enshrined in the constitution and various state constitutions.

Gender equality is unequivocally a good thing. But it's only one of a small number of decent aspects of our democracy. The modern world is distinguished not by the structure of governments, but by the concept of inalienable human rights governed by a higher law that cannot be legitimately changed even by a democratic government.

But I agree that people put too much stock into Ancient Athens and Sparta. Those societies were tiny compared to modern societies--just a few thousand citizens each. Even during the Roman Republic, full citizens only counted in the tens of thousands.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Livius]

A 2000+ year old book (older, in some cases) fraudulently constructed by ignorant, illiterate peasant halfwits

It was constructed for ignorant peasants by people who knew it was all metaphorical.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why no country is a democracy these days, they are republics. Look up the difference.

Re: I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

State funding for political parties.

The government having a choice in who can run for office, no dragons lurk here...

Re: I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you had to do your experiment using statistics, you should have designed a better experiment."

- A. Scientist

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a false dichotomy. Democracy is a vague concept, and a republican structure is just one of many kinds of democracies.

"We're a republic, not a democracy" is a refrain people use--usually conservatives--to excuse some accusation. The refrain is non-sensical, regardless of whether the accusation was accurate or not.

Re:I hypothesize..

[jellomizer]

Each party will pick and choose whatever science suits their needs. The republicans want the religious vote, state you believe in intelengent design and you get the vote. If the democrats want the environentalist vote, stand behind the newest untested theory about something say GM Foods (all Genetically modified foods) and you got their vote.

It isn't about science but calling your base.

Re:I hypothesize..

[jellomizer]

If you believe magic sky daddy is watching you all the time, you do.

Re:I hypothesize..

[jellomizer]

You do realize the Romans had a long history as an elected republic before it became an empire.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Larryish]

Tell that to all those fucking churchy people.

"Christian morality"as I see it practiced here (Alabama, USA bible belt) means that you can lie, cheat, steal, and backstab anyone as long as you don't drink a beer or say a wordy durd while you are doing it.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Larryish]

Blue sky research is what will bring about renewable energy.

In the short term the shareholders won't like it, but in the long term it is necessary.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

This paper is worthless. There is no actual data. It is clear the researchers know nothing about distributions, the assumptions of their statistical tests, or how to interpret a pvalue. Given these obvious flaws I would assume the study was also not run properly.

Re:I hypothesize..

[narcc]

Science is a methodology based on logic and rational thought used to arrive at a conclusion

Basic science fail!

Re:I hypothesize..

[dgatwood]

Conversely throwing money at solar and wind energy when it's not economically viable just distorts the market and leads to wasted resources (a pessimistic view, yes, but accurate to the progress thus far).

Incredibly pessimistic, but not entirely unjustified. As far as I can tell, the primary reason that solar and wind power is so expensive is that the economies of scale are not on its side. Building one experimental solar tower is expensive because your design costs are distributed across a single production unit. However, assuming it works, it is relatively cheap to build a hundred more just like it. Thus, throwing money at solar and wind energy is the only thing that will ever make it financially viable. That said, what we need, at this point, is to throw lots of money at the production side, not the research side.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest, the typo that is missing changes the context.

They meant "a time before justice(TM) and democracy(C)"

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

In a related study, thinking about religion has been linked to abuse of parentheses.

Re:I hypothesize..

[FatLittleMonkey]

A 2000+ year old book (older, in some cases) fraudulently constructed by ignorant, illiterate peasant halfwits

Actually the old testament was created by scholars in Jerusalem in the 8th century BC to help a local king to exploit a temporary power vacuum in the Israel/Judea region by creating and co-opting a series of stories about "unity", always with Jerusalem as the historical centre (in reality a small goat-herder mountain town on the fringes, brought to brief glory by being a crossroads between two occupying powers, Egyptian and Assyrian.) He didn't survive to see it completed, his land invaded by the Babylonians. And the stories were finished by the scholars in exile in Babylon, trying to create something to promote a cultural unity amongst the exiles.

It was a cleverly crafted political document that drew on familiar myths from throughout the region, all focused on reinforcing the idea of a single unified people. Hence single god, single law, single nation, single temple, and repeated warnings about those who stray from the true path being punished.

(Archaeologically, you see all the household gods and local temples throughout Israel and Judea abandoned over a remarkably short period.)

Re:I hypothesize..

[FatLittleMonkey]

"Historically" is a trap. You need to remember that the Democrats once contained what is now the southern-dominated Republican party as a major influence. The Republicans otoh were primarily a northern dominated party. To a large degree, the parties swapped roles in the seventies.

Scientists, for example, used to vote primarily for the Republican party. Now 90+% vote Democrat.

Re:I hypothesize..

[mjwx]

A 2000+ year old book (older, in some cases) fraudulently constructed by ignorant, illiterate peasant halfwits from a time before justice and democracy

Youre knowledge of history is truly astounding. Do tell, when do you suppose the Roman Republic existed? Or the democratic Greek city-states?

Or that it was written by illiterate peasants when the Christian Bible was in fact penned by the nobility at the council of Nicaea which was assembled by the Roman Emperor Constantine.

Constantine was not the first ruler to write religious texts and many kings and tyrants since Constantine have re-written the bible in part or in whole to suit their own needs.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop Talking about me!

Re:I hypothesize..

[SalafranceUnderhill]

Please, don't sugar-coat the truth!

Re:I hypothesize..

[SalafranceUnderhill]

I rather suspect that the parent was using artistic license to make a rhetorical point. Obviously, not an entirely popular one. Fun fact: the democracies of Rome and Greece both predate Christianity.

Re:I hypothesize..

[ghettoimp]

In a related study, thinking about religion has been linked to abuse of parentheses.

God protects Lisp programmers, little children, and ships named Enterprise?

Re:I hypothesize..

[TFAFalcon]

Having elections doesn't mean much when much of your population is not eligible to vote due to being enslaved and/or female.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell have slaves to do with democracy? It's entirely possible to have democracy yet not let everyone vote. Now I'm not sure about this one, so I ask, does America let it's prisoners vote? Illegal immigrants? You even called it democracy yourself before you let women vote. Greek democracy was more real than what we have today (except maybe switzerland). Every place now has at least one layer of representation. Also the american style strong leader(that's not even selected by the citizens directly, but by states) is even further away from the democratic ideal.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Shadow of Eternity]

I can BELIEVE in the validity of the scientific method and its demonstrable tendency to iterate towards a more correct and complete understanding of the universe.

Re:I hypothesize..

[LordLimecat]

That is not, to my knowledge, true. They DID kill people who refused to demonstrate that they were not christian by performing incense offerings, but that was only sporadic, and as I recall simply affirming that you were not christian was sufficient-- the offering was just the most convenient way to be sure, as they understood christians to be particularly stubborn regarding sacrifices to other Gods.

The irony is that the "religious sacrifices" you speak of were pretty darn secular, and were often enough offerings to the emperor himself. I mean, you dont suppose the Jews were made to make those sacrifices, do you?

Also, Rome went through several periods; there were no despots during the Roman Republic, hence the name. You seem to be referring to the roman empire. Apparently, GP isnt the only one whose history needs some work.

Re:I hypothesize..

[LordLimecat]

Must have been nice being Saul of Tarsus and all, giving up a cushy life to die for a metaphor.

Re:I hypothesize..

[LordLimecat]

Christian Bible was in fact penned by the nobility at the council of Nicaea which was assembled by the Roman Emperor Constantine.

More ignorance, will wonders never cease. The council of Nicea simply affirmed a list of books that were already in use. You can see this if you did the slightest research, such as looking in Eusebius' church history where he clearly refers to a canon. The Old Testament certainly has never been in question; for 2000 years we have used the same OT. The NT has varied depending on denomination, with the Roman Catholic church pulling in some apocrypha (which as I recall was not referenced by Eusebius), but even that variance has been minor.

Constantine was not the first ruler to write religious texts

All of the texts in the New Testament are first century. That would be quite some feat for Constantine to author them.

Constantine have re-written the bible

Gosh, its a shame we dont have original manuscripts. Oh wait, we do.

Re:I hypothesize..

[LordLimecat]

Parent and a good number of people in this thread have not the knowledge to make any such points. Generally it is best not to argue points if one is completely ignorant of them.

Re:I hypothesize..

[LordLimecat]

America let it's prisoners vote?

No

Illegal immigrants?

Well, elections are for nationals, so no, but that may change. That Im aware of, NO country lets non-citizens vote.

Re:I hypothesize..

[petman]

In the UK, non-citizen residents are allowed to vote in local elections.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

Replace "slaves" with "illegal immigrants", and suddenly it becomes much more viable!

Re:I hypothesize..

[rcamans]

that is only the catholic version, where you can buy forgiveness

Re:I hypothesize..

[pnutjam]

Everyone has to live by a code, who are you to criticize theirs?

Re:I hypothesize..

[pnutjam]

The best part about buying forgiveness, is being able to buy future forgiveness. Apparently you can repent a sin you have not commited yet and fully intend to commit...

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

Because forgiveness and non-judgmentalness are horrible moral traits to have.

Strawman arguments aside, the response to this sort of thing is typically, "what about X or Y 'Christian'", showing they are judgmental and unforgiving, thereby somehow proving, what? That judgmentalness and unforgiving mindsets are bad? Which is what the religion actually teaches. Which then says of the critic, they agree with the principles, that is, the principles are right -- but they refuse to stand by them their own selves.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

> Conversely, one would think that thinking about religion and faith would trigger moral
> behavior

One wouldn't. A 2000+ year old book (older, in some cases) fraudulently constructed by ignorant, illiterate peasant halfwits from a time before justice and democracy is not conducive to challenging beliefs or finding accurate answers to relevant problems. That's why the most religious countries are the most fucked.

This reminds me of how, if you bring a very nasty person into your home, they will see everything in a nasty light, and treat you in a nasty manner.

A pig can only speak pig and can only understand pig. They do not really understand humans, or even other animals. They only hear pig speech they can not exactly make out. If you bring them into your house, they will want to make it into a pigsty, and until it is, they see it as we may see pigstys.

As for your vanity, that you believe your heart and mind is far more brilliant then that of those writers of the Bible and Jesus, I have to wonder if you could even begin to duplicate any of the writing, or what that would look like? Maybe like your post here? "Some fuckwit retard coutry bumpkin idiot banged his head and made everything very fucked", and then go, "See, here is the Book of Romans, only this is better!"

Sad. Well, as the Bible says, "Pride comes before a fall". And estimating your own heart and mind as highly as you do, believe me, you won't go far.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

True. Democracy as practiced by the ancient Greeks would be hard to implement today, what with their not letting women vote and keeping slaves and all.

A person can always find strawman arguments which are effectively meaningless, and usually very dishonest as means of point.

For instance, did you know just over a hundred years ago in America the age of consent was ten? Probably not. And we could trace back many barbarities "just a hundred years ago" in "modern, non-barbaric society". Of course, not today! No barbarities here today.

I look at much of these barbarities of a hundred years ago and see what I see today: there are plenty who escape them, and those whose writings or written down speeches and actions are recorded are distinctly among that number.

For instance, because Mark Twain lived in the same culture that had many gross barbarities even a modern barbarian would agree with, does this mean he engaged in the same ones? Was Socrates a "fuckwit" or Buddha, or countless other people of fame?

Who just happened to live a hundred or two thousand years ago? Or were there no solid, founding principles today which people regard well, which were not taken from people over two thousand years ago? Or thought of by them first?

No! Not by your book.

Re:I hypothesize..

[HeckRuler]

It means a lot to the people with a vote.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly enough Republicans care a LOT about the economy and historically provide greater funding to the sciences than Democrats because of it. There are a few obvious exceptions like embryonic stem cell research that make headlines but by and large Republicans provide more funding to science. If you don't want to take my word for it youtube search for Neil DeGrasse Tyson talking about it.

Most objections to embryonic stem cell research are moral in nature. In order to harvest a new line, an embryo must be destroyed. While Christianity does not agree when the spirit enters a body (or even when that mass of cells can be thought of as an individual), it agrees that it has the POTENTIAL for becoming a human. I do not want to see women getting pregnant just so they can sell cells from their aborted embryos. I have no qualms in using the lines we already have, or from harvesting cells from the umbilical cord or afterbirth.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote.

Re: I hypothesize..

[Occams]

Lucius Cornelias Sulla was a despot during the Roman Republic. There were others too. The constitution even had a provision for an elected dictator for managing crises.

Re:I hypothesize..

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the variant requires you to seek forgiveness and assigns you a penance to make things right, and insists that you not do the wrong thing again lest your contrition become suspect and you are punished in spite of saying sorry because you didn't really mean to change when you said you're sorry. It's often not good enough to simply apologize.

Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like the study's results would be consistent with either hypothesis...

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like the study's results would be consistent with either hypothesis...

Or logical thinking.

Heck, just plan "thinking" would probably do since most people don't bother to do that before reacting.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[ShanghaiBill]

It seems like the study's results would be consistent with either hypothesis...

Or logical thinking.

Except that altruism is not logical.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[Nadaka]

To a certain degree it is. Your genes will not survive in the long run if your species does not.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it not logical? Because you don't agree with the goal? A behavior is not illogical just because it doesn't prioritize survival above all else, or something such as that. I see nothing inherently illogical about it.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that altruism is not logical.

From a given irrational and selfish perspective, maybe not so much.

From a perspective of evolutionary biology, it's how we got here and formed societies in the first place.

But, hey, if you think "I got mine fuck society" is a logical position -- you might not be quite the rational entity you think you are. In fact, you might be a douche bag who drank the Kool-Aid.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Except that altruism is not logical.

It's extremely hard to find an example of pure altruism that doesn't have benefits for one's self or family/community.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

To a certain degree it is. Your genes will not survive in the long run if your species does not.

Except it isn't. Altruism is the absence of self-centered thinking or selfishness. Using your example, altruism would strive to help the species survive without regard to ones own genes, and so would likely strive to help more than just one species survive.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think there is a difference between the two, you have issues. The many is just a bunch of fews.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Vulcan whoosh.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[fahrbot-bot]

Except that altruism is not logical.

It's extremely hard to find an example of pure altruism that doesn't have benefits for one's self or family/community.

Not so hard. People donate money/materials to non-local charities, etc... In my case, I also give money to friends in need (no strings attached), some I (still) haven't seen in 20 years, but only occasionally talk/email with. I've given about $70k to friends in the last 7 years. The only self-benefit is to my karma.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[Jmc23]

So you've been to Quebec, eh?

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[Jmc23]

Good karma === Bad karma

The new agers forgot to bring that little tidbit of information over. Bhagavad Gita explains it all.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[SandFrog]

I think you just refuted your own assertion.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[bberens]

I'm always skeptical of these types of studies. I mean who are they surveying that says date rape is okay?

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[bill_mcgonigle]

The only self-benefit is to my karma.

So you don't feel completely ambivalent about making these donations?

I'm not saying you should - "giving is its own reward" is probably a more ancient saying than modern English - just that being charitable makes most people feel good.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[azcodemonkey]

I believe you're confusing "benevolence" and "altruism". Altruism is putting others before yourself, inherently putting you at a disadvantage. That is illogical. You can do more good for others by taking care of yourself and being charitable. That would be benevolence.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[fahrbot-bot]

The only self-benefit is to my karma.

So you don't feel completely ambivalent about making these donations? I'm not saying you should - "giving is its own reward" is probably a more ancient saying than modern English - just that being charitable makes most people feel good.

You're correct that I "feel good" (or, at least, not bad) about being able to help and actually helping my friends (and a few charities), but I'm not sure I'd qualify that (or any change in my karma) as a "benefit" to myself/family/community with regard to the the original poster's comment, though perhaps I'm not looking through the same lens. Regardless of my karma, a coffee at Starbucks still costs $1.50 (or whatever) - and my wife is still dead [ Remember Sue... (as I've mentioned before) ] ....

I helped out because I have more than I need and they needed more than they had - through no major fault of their own.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm always skeptical of these types of studies. I mean who are they surveying that says date rape is okay?

The filthy slut who was asking for it, obviously.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[someone1234]

Altruism is actually wise selfishness.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, after all the vile mysoginistic commenters I've seen in online discussion forums, I really don't have a hard time believing that some of them would rationalize rape.

Note to self: stop reading comment threads on articles about women in programming.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Otherwise known as "enlightened self-interest".

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[Kielistic]

Because there are enough "illogical" people that do things to help others we, as a whole, do not have to be as much at each others throats. That's where the benefit to oneself comes in. If everyone goes by the code "fuck you; get your own" you are much more likely to encounter someone that goes by the code "fuck you; I'll take yours".

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[Livius]

Except that altruism is not logical.

Altruism by an individual is not logical.

Altruism within a group is an extremely successful survival strategy.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[Kazoo the Clown]

Bingo. The goofballs who claim altruism is illogical (including the goddess of selfishness, Ayn Rand) overlook at least one important factor: reputation effects. One example: I'd much rather dine with someone NOT inclined to stiff the waiter even if we're not likely to ever dine there again, because if he'll stiff the waiter he seems likely to jerk me around as well, given half the chance.

Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because usually what's good for the community is also good for you. And if you look from far enought the whole world is just a single community. Kinda hard to do good things that would not in some minor way affect yourself(or at least in theory could affect yourself). Doesn't mean they always will. Also, by helping, for example, vaccinate people if africa has very little direct impact on my life on the other side of the ocean. I just like the idea of saving someones life with the amount of money that would not even buy me a cup of coffee around here. I guess you could argue I get the good feeling from doing so, and because of that it's actually a selfish thing to do. But if you really go that route, every single selection people make is selfish. Every single one. You always finally do the decision that feels better for you, no matter the reason. If you decide to streer away from a kid and end up in a ditch injured it was selfish thing to do, because you thought you'd feel better being injured than killing a kid. It's even selfish if you die doing so.

I postulate

[Ceriel Nosforit]

John Nash, and his Game Theory.

Re:I postulate

[Anonymous Coward]

I postulated you postulating that.

The Ideal of Science

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it'd be more fair to say that the IDEA of science (impartiality, seeking truth, etc) being a moral pursuit would make people act morally.

Anybody who has read any science news published in the past decade or so knows exactly how easily it can be to twist science to support a political or economic agenda. Case in point, science says that smoking causes cancer. How many studies were published, funded by tobacco companies, saying that it was harmless? The same can be said about the Wage Disparity, effects of HFCS and climate change to name a few.

The ideal of scientific study is great and might stimulate people to behave morally. But I'm curious if that would hold for people that believe in the lofty ideals of anything.

Re:The Ideal of Science

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the bias of science towards morality isn't because they described science in altruistic terms in the questionnaire.

Re:The Ideal of Science

[evilRhino]

Real science requires reproducible results. There were no studies published showing that smoking was harmless because you can't duplicate that result, the controversy was that numerous studies proving that smoking was harmful were either suppressed or blocked.

Re:The Ideal of Science

[locofungus]

I cannot directly answer your claim about no studies being published that show smoking is harmless because I haven't read the literature but any reasonably competent researcher could write a paper showing that smoking might be harmless.

The problem with smoking is that the effects happen over a long term and there are many confounding factors to take into account - smokers often have a worse diet for example. At the end of the day the correlation of smoking with harm is the only one that stands up to extended scrutiny but it's not something that can be (easily) proved in a single study.

Bicycle helmet wearing rates are positively correlated with cyclist head injury rates. Countries (and states) that have introduced mandatory helmets have typically seen an increase in head injury rates after the introduction of the law unless the law was not enforced.

But you can find plenty of papers published that suggest that bicycle helmets prevent head injury. I don't know of any that say that bicycle helmet wearing is more dangerous than not (despite the correlation above) although there are also plenty that suggest that there is no net benefit to cycle helmet wearing and there are some that say that the reduction in cycling of mandatory helmet laws have a net deleterious health effect.

Bicycle helmet wearing efficacy testing is hampered by confounding factors. Just as one example, it has been measured that cars pass helmeted cyclists closer than unhelmeted cyclists. My nearest "miss" was being clipped on the arm by the wing mirror of a very fast moving car. I might not be alive today if I'd been wearing a helmet and he'd been two inches closer.

So you cannot just test a helmet in the lab and say that in event A, a helmet is better than no helmet because the frequency of event A might itself depend on the presence or absence of a helmet.

Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[ShieldW0lf]

The human cultures that are most exposed to modern scientific education are also those with birth rates below replacement levels. So, for whatever reason, scientific education is co-related with the decline of human civilization. If it leads to the decline of human cultures, it is not moral.

The reason that the researchers found scientific thought leads to moral behavior is because the researchers have a flawed definition of what is moral and what is not. Which is to be expected, because they're scientific researchers.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where the crap did you dig up that definition of "moral?"

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Roger W Moore]

The human cultures that are most exposed to modern scientific education are also those with birth rates below replacement levels. So, for whatever reason, scientific education is co-related with the decline of human civilization.

Not true. Humans have increased their numbers until the entire planet is full of us and vast areas of its surface have been taken over to provide us the food that we need. In an environment with massive, untapped natural resources which can be developed and exploited to serve an every increasing population you may have a point that to sustain civilization you need to grow and expand. This is arguably no longer the case.

If we want to sustain our civilization we have to find a way to switch from growth through increasing our numbers to a stable population. This is concerning because it is extremely hard to do since nature generally seems to take the "grow or die" approach...but when to grow is to die (either from fighting for limited resources or from a lack of resources) then we have to find another way and it is hard to imagine that science will not the route to finding it.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[bill_mcgonigle]

The human cultures that are most exposed to modern scientific education are also those with birth rates below replacement levels. So, for whatever reason, scientific education is co-related with the decline of human civilization. If it leads to the decline of human cultures, it is not moral.

They're also those with effective/available birth control, female equality, and education.

Don't worry, though - as soon as we build our AI's and fusion reactors, humans will have more time to boink, pursue art, and raise families. It takes science, though, if you want to do it without famine and pestilence.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Kuruk]

We are over populating the planet as is.

A decline in breeding is a welcome balance.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rising standards of living generally lead to a decline in birth rates. People can afford to engage in other fun activities besides sex, and they need time to do those things, which raising a huge family of kids does not permit. It's an economic question, not a scientific one.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

To respond in a shiny sciency-sounding way, correlation does not prove causality. In other words, perhaps there is some besides or in combination with science exposure that depresses birth rates.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[ShieldW0lf]

Where the crap did you dig up that definition of "moral?"

I went back to basics and made choices.

I am a person. Do I have value? Yes, I've decided that I do.

Does humanity have value? Yes, I've decided that it does.

So, the most fundamental basis of moral behavior has to be, "Does it cause us to destroy ourselves."

If behavior causes us to destroy ourselves, it is immoral. Full stop.

After that, I begin to consider the quality of the human experience. It is always better to exist than to not exist, but it is better to avoid suffering and afford humans dignity after the fundamental goal of survival is met.

For example, it is better if birth control makes it possible for people to have families that are more likely to survive and thrive, and afford women more dignity.

But, if every woman on Earth decided that they were going to just skip having children and focus on their careers, it would then become moral to rape them into pregnancy and force them to bear their children to term, and immoral to stand by and watch humanity become extinct because we don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done.

That's a ridiculously extreme example that will never actually come to pass, of course, but it illustrates the way in which behaviors become moral or immoral depending on the situation.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

And what exactly is moral conduct in your book?

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Nadaka]

Not really. Earth can easily sustain 10 to 14 billion humans with a good use of technology. That could go into the hundreds of billions if we could accept getting our protein from algae vats.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Having fewer people does not imply an automatic decline of human civilization. Without that poor assumption, the rest of your argument falls flat.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Kuruk]

And where would the rest of the biosphere live if we rock into the hundreds of billion.

What is our goal ? To fuck until we can't move ?

Our basic nature is to breed. We can follow that or grow up.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[ShieldW0lf]

Our basic nature is to breed. We can follow that or grow up.

The fundamental duty of all living things is to recreate themselves. After you do, something changes inside you that causes you to realize that you're not the center of the universe. That's called "Growing Up".

If you haven't bred yet, you're still a child. You shouldn't be allowed to vote, any more than any other mewling babe.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[The Cat]

What is our goal ? To fuck until we can't move ?

Word.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Beardydog]

This all seems to assume that a birth rate below replacement ends inevitably with extinction, which is stupid, nonsensical gibbledypoop. The fact that we aren't currently keeping up doesn't mean we wouldn't pick up the pace if the planet started to get a little sparse. There are seven billion people, and I see nothing wrong with having a few less, as long as we're doing everything we can to keep the current batch alive. Letting people die is unethical, but not cranking out new ones isn't even on the scale.

This is you: http://www.xkcd.com/605/

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

You just demonstrated another flawed definition of morality.

How does it stand up to the question of capital punishment for murderers? Murderers destroy other humans, which would be translated as "Humans destroying themselves." Can executing murderers be moral? If so, how is it different from the murderers' actions? You're still killing a human which is "destroying ourselves" using the same translation as before.

Enjoy continually creating circular logic to try to plug this hole.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

After you do, something changes inside you that causes you to realize that you're not the center of the universe. That's called "Growing Up".

But I have no delusion that I'm the centre of the universe, and therefore see no reason to have children. It seems that most other intelligent people have already come to this conclusion.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Nadaka]

I am not suggesting we should. But we can build up and down. We don't really need to spread out that much until we are well on our way into the 10s of billions. The point I am making is that we are a long long way from being genuinely overpopulated if we actually used our technology.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Our basic nature is to breed. We can follow that or grow up.

The fundamental duty of all living things is to recreate themselves. After you do, something changes inside you that causes you to realize that you're not the center of the universe. That's called "Growing Up".

If you haven't bred yet, you're still a child. You shouldn't be allowed to vote, any more than any other mewling babe.

That is the biggest BS I have read in a while. There are plenty of people that have bred multiple times and yet to grow up or actual act like adults or they let their kids run wild (being non-responsible towards their kids because they are selfish as parents.)

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Kuruk]

We need to step up and stop.

Breeding is over. We can kill anything we can grasp...extinct anything larger than a medium dog.

We can farm anything anywhere we want.

What is our goal. We won. We can breed all we want now. Challenge over.

All that is left to beat is insects, virus's and bacteria. The more we fuck the more they grow....so we need a new angle.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Breeding is for animals. The people who make a difference are focused on changing Minds not reproducing Bodies. I mean, it's great that you made some more humans and you're really proud of that, even though you could have done it with no higher brain function at all. But your vote, as a breeder, counts for very little next to all the votes of your offspring, who have been learning from me and will vote for me.

Humans are just a substrate, a temporary phenomenon. People go on. Humans are pitiful, weak bags of mostly water that can't go anywhere too hot or too cold, can't handle high pressures or low pressures, fall apart for the slightest reason. But People can be so much more than that. And they will be, long after the breeders die out. We don't hate you, we just don't care very much about your primitive biological urges.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Asimov's Trantor had, if I remember correctly, 40 billion at its peak and that was basically one planet-wide city. Or you could go up an order of magnitude or two and use Coruscant at a trillion people. Of course if you do that, you run into a problem or two or three. If you're wondering if a webcomic author is a good authority on the physics of a fictional city, he's not just a webcomic author.

Of course, we COULD use that science to send some of those billions of people to planets or celestial bodies other than Earth. Keep a few billion folks on Earth, send a couple million to orbiting habitats, and put the rest on Mars and its moons as well as Earth's moon.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[ShieldW0lf]

I've been putting together a system that I think would be effective in pulling us out of this nosedive. I started in on an essay to explain it at one point, though I haven't worked on it recently... been designing the software needed to support it.

http://slashdot.org/journal/492191

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Hatta]

The human cultures that are most exposed to modern scientific education are also those with birth rates below replacement levels

Which is good, because the Earth is beyond carrying capacity. Increasing the population when we're about to run out of petroleum based fertilizers and become unable to feed billions of people is immoral.

So, for whatever reason, scientific education is co-related with the decline of human civilization.

Population is not the same as civilization. Civilization is not even proportional to population.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[fahrbot-bot]

Not really. Earth can easily sustain 10 to 14 billion humans with a good use of technology. That could go into the hundreds of billions if we could accept getting our protein from algae vats.

Or other sources...

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[ShieldW0lf]

Our basic nature is to breed. We can follow that or grow up.

The fundamental duty of all living things is to recreate themselves. After you do, something changes inside you that causes you to realize that you're not the center of the universe. That's called "Growing Up".

If you haven't bred yet, you're still a child. You shouldn't be allowed to vote, any more than any other mewling babe.

That is the biggest BS I have read in a while. There are plenty of people that have bred multiple times and yet to grow up or actual act like adults or they let their kids run wild (being non-responsible towards their kids because they are selfish as parents.)

If you don't have kids of your own, then who the fuck are you to judge? If they let their kids run wild, their kids won't let you tame them, and they'll reproduce, and they'll carry on their family line, despite social pressure to abstain from reproducing and work. It's an effective defense mechanism against efforts to "civilize" them and use them.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[ShieldW0lf]

No, breeding is for living things. As opposed to dead things. If you're not a breeder, you're a dead man walking, and you better make yourself useful.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[MysteriousPreacher]

I am a person. Do I have value? Yes, I've decided that I do.

Does humanity have value? Yes, I've decided that it does.

The trick with morality is not in making statements - it's about understanding why something is so? Why does any of us have value, and why does humanity have value? I agree that humanity has value, because in the universe we know humanity is the only sentient species. The lowest of the low has value because of the consequences of not assigning value to them. Even then, we get in to the personhood debate which is not an easy one to resolve, but can reach certain standards through reason. For example, I'd consider the right to own property to be fundamental, because few people want their shit to be arbitrarily taken away. Would a person in a coma who medically has irrevocably lost higher brain functions have the same rights? No.

So, the most fundamental basis of moral behavior has to be, "Does it cause us to destroy ourselves."

If behavior causes us to destroy ourselves, it is immoral. Full stop.

It depends on what how you define destruction.

After that, I begin to consider the quality of the human experience. It is always better to exist than to not exist, but it is better to avoid suffering and afford humans dignity after the fundamental goal of survival is met.

Existence is not always better than non-existence. Dignity sometimes comes through non-existence.

For example, it is better if birth control makes it possible for people to have families that are more likely to survive and thrive, and afford women more dignity.

But, if every woman on Earth decided that they were going to just skip having children and focus on their careers, it would then become moral to rape them into pregnancy and force them to bear their children to term, and immoral to stand by and watch humanity become extinct because we don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done.

That's a ridiculously extreme example that will never actually come to pass, of course, but it illustrates the way in which behaviors become moral or immoral depending on the situation.

I agree it is situational. Morality is not simple. On the rape example, it's a difficult choice where I feel morality may give way to pragmatism. To return to the example of property; what if you were to collapse in the street, and the only way to save you was to quickly drive you to hospital? I have a car, but I refuse to offer a lift because I'm late for dinner. It's my car, but with this information the moral choice to me is to take my car and save this man's life. What then if the reason you collapsed was because you tried to mug a well armed victim? You're right - it's situational, and also can be influenced by factors.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Jmc23]

What you describe is a distorted view of a small part of the system I'm designing, I call it LIFE. What language/protocol are you thinking of using?

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not a breeder, you're a dead man walking, and you better make yourself useful.

Dead people make good fertilizer. Come up with a better analogy.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Decline in population levels is not the same as "decline of civilization" - that's a pretty obvious fallacy

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Kuruk]

How many of us would be enough for you ?

I mean we can clearly breed un-opposed.

What is the goal.....More is better...Biology is broken. We won.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the most fundamental basis of moral behavior has to be, "Does it cause us to destroy ourselves."

That's a ridiculously extreme example that will never actually come to pass, of course, but it illustrates the way in which behaviors become moral or immoral depending on the situation.

Oh ok, then your argument that "science education is immoral" is only valid in a ridiculously extreme example that will never actually come to pass.

Do you think it's maybe a little bit more likely that science will be the only thing that gets our species to other planets, and is thus critical to the long-term survival of humanity? Even if you're a pure "scoreboard utilitarian", you should be trying to optimize the score at the end of the game instead of at the end of the first quarter.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Nadaka]

That is the wrong question.

There is no amount of people I consider "enough".

Overpopulation does not occur when you have more than "enough", it occurs when you have to many.

And the 7 odd billion people we have now are not to many. Every one of us could live a western lifestyle if we used our existing technology reasonably. That means building a metric crap ton of solar energy plants in the desert. That means removing sequestered fossil fuels as our transportation energy source. That means building an effective global power and communications grid. None of these things are beyond our reach. We have more than enough wealth, material and labor available. What we really need is power and we can get that from simple sunlight.

Then you look at the socio-economic trends of the western civilization, and your overpopulation problem naturally evaporates as birthrates decline. The population will plateau, it already is in most of the developed world.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Our basic nature is to breed. We can follow that or grow up.

The fundamental duty of all living things is to recreate themselves. After you do, something changes inside you that causes you to realize that you're not the center of the universe. That's called "Growing Up".

If you haven't bred yet, you're still a child. You shouldn't be allowed to vote, any more than any other mewling babe.

That is the biggest BS I have read in a while. There are plenty of people that have bred multiple times and yet to grow up or actual act like adults or they let their kids run wild (being non-responsible towards their kids because they are selfish as parents.)

If you don't have kids of your own, then who the fuck are you to judge? If they let their kids run wild, their kids won't let you tame them, and they'll reproduce, and they'll carry on their family line, despite social pressure to abstain from reproducing and work. It's an effective defense mechanism against efforts to "civilize" them and use them.

Because it doesn't take the element of having kids to know how to be a grown up, which is why one (with out without having had kids) can judge others that have children and very easily see they don't act like grown ups. So they should be "judged" for being idiots and for helping to ruining a stable society, especially if they take the same level of effort to their professional jobs, teachers especially, coz I have seen such examples that made me fear for their own kids and the kids they educate. So again, yes, people should be judged.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[ShieldW0lf]

If you're not a breeder, you're a dead man walking, and you better make yourself useful.

Dead people make good fertilizer. Come up with a better analogy.

Ever heard of Prions?

Dead people do NOT make good fertilizer.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Kuruk]

So its we are focused on profit !

We could all live well for now on the resources we have.... For a while. Ok the clock would still be ticking.

True. But we are ruled by greedy apes that will not let go until their cold dead hands are pried loose. When will we get over that ?

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Kuruk]

So to quote "And the 7 odd billion people we have now are not to many"

What are we needing. cause breeding wont fix it ?

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Nadaka]

We could live well forever, the clock would not be ticking as you put it. I am talking about a permanent population. We have no need to use non-renewable materials. We could power all of North America with a solar thermal power system covering a square less than 100 miles on side. Make it a little bigger and we can turn sea water into fresh water and refill the Ogallala aquifer. Put a similar one on each continent and completely end the worlds reliance on fossil fuels. This requires no new technology.

We get rid of the greedy apes as soon as people stop buying into the idea that we are overpopulated. The markets work to their advantage based on the idea of artificial scarcity, because it is exactly that... artificial. Once people realize that, then you can smash their little monkey skulls and start building the future.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Kuruk]

Lol and breeding would stop this ?

Your on my side. Fool.

Where the pest that needs to stop.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[ShieldW0lf]

This ISN'T a stable society. It's a society that has been below replacement levels of reproduction for several generations. We're in the middle of a crisis of too many elderly and not enough young. You're living in a bubble untarnished by reality. If you search for key words such as "Demographic Winter" or "Ageing Population" there are plenty of numbers to substantiate the simple truth that we are REALLY FUCKED.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your ideals and preconceptions...

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dead people do NOT make good fertilizer.

Sure they do, don't knock it till you've tried it!

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see a problem here. Doesn't this just mean fewer kids on my lawn?

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't illustrate anything except that you're a crazy sexist. Not having offspring is not the same as "destroying ourselves". We are we, we aren't our children. Hypothetical individuals that might be born in the future don't have any rights or interests until they are actually born.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[mcl630]

This ISN'T a stable society. It's a society that has been below replacement levels of reproduction for several generations. We're in the middle of a crisis of too many elderly and not enough young. You're living in a bubble untarnished by reality. If you search for key words such as "Demographic Winter" or "Ageing Population" there are plenty of numbers to substantiate the simple truth that we are REALLY FUCKED.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your ideals and preconceptions...

Birth rates globally are still above replacement levels (2.36 per woman of child-bearing age), albeit just by a hair (2.33 globally is break even), but are falling. You are assuming that trend will continue indefinately, probably falsely.

Also note the "break even" fertility rate falls as infant/child mortality rates fall. In developed countries, 2.1 is break even; in developing countries it ranges from 2.5 - 3.3 due to higher mortality rates. As medical science improves (and existing advances become available
in poorer nations), replacement level should fall closer to the ideal 2.0.

Source Total fertility rate

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[mcgrew]

On the off chance that you're not trolling, FYI the world is greatly overpopulated. We are NOT going to lower the birth rate to our extinction, but our overpopulation itself may well do so. We are undergoing a mass extinction right now that is entirely due to habitat loss.

Fewer kids need to be born. I stopped at two.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[ShieldW0lf]

I know you're just being a douchebag, but in all seriousness, right now I'm trying to design an effective way for mesh networks to scale. My system presupposes their existence, and the tech isn't quite there yet. I believe that by making all the nodes aware of their location on the earth, and by making the nodes intelligent enough to discriminate between peers based on the broadcast power of the peer, I can solve the problem. But it takes time. The rest of the necessary technology has already been invented, this is the remaining key to the puzzle. Depolying it will be a whole different matter... ideally, something can be put together that can run on existing devices, so people can, if they wish, install the software and begin the process of administering their affairs using the new system.

If billions of people can be presented with the choice "From now on, we will ignore existing systems of authority and govern our affairs using this system. Anyone who attempts to use force to compel you to honour the rules of the old system is a violent criminal, and we will all co-operate to stop them. Do you agree?", and they say "Yes", and they KNOW that 9 out of 10 people they see on the street ALSO said yes, then the existing systems will fall. What will they do with their newfound power? I don't know. Evolve as a society? Kill themselves? Beats me. As long as vicious self-serving bastards are no longer able to wield them, I'll be content.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[jellomizer]

It's not about morality it is that scientists can't get laid.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Vegemeister]

Does humanity have value? Yes, I've decided that it does.

Well that's a silly assumption...

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Vegemeister]

wat

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Jmc23]

No, seriously, my system is called Living Interactively For Everyone, or many other acronyms. It's for sharing, compiling, organizing, visualizing, and commenting on data, regardless of what the data is and with the provision that you control your data, not some corporation. Mesh networking of a tor like environment is one of the future goals. The problem I'm having right now is dealing with unique identification of individuals and objects/events which becomes a problem with one system to rule them all. The mesh problem never seemed too much of a problem to me, just a really big battery drain and not really necessary until you absolutely can't trust the internet, and then community set up servers could administrate the mesh networks (that's crazy future). LIFE, by design, sends out signals to find out if any other device has life and if not what level of awareness it has, i.e., what protocols/apis it has.

BTW, you do know you're a bit crazy right? I won't hold it against you.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[dryeo]

How many farm worlds did it take to support Trantor?

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Kuruk]

No the apes look at money. That fake number that they need to get bigger.

So its we are focused on profit !

Try stop it.

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Kuruk]

Im sorry but step up.

We can breed as much as we want. Nothing eats us.

We can farm the whole planet with tech and extinct everything above alge if we like.

Why ?

Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear hear! Clearly this is cause-and-effect, not correlation! Death to modern scientific educations! They clearly cause the decline of human civilization! We cannot advance unless we overpopulated our planet!

Waitaminute.... something doesn't feel right about this statement.

Acedemic Dishonesty shouldnt exist then

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, but it does

Science is about as pure as a cribhouse whore

[DNS-and-BIND]

Moral behavior? Nah, "science" is only a justification used to confirm what people already know to be "true". If the conclusion leads the wrong way, then there is automatically something wrong. The scientist is then attacked and discredited. Read The Return of the Ugly, Racist Pseudoscientist with a Small Penis to discover how one man got smacked in the face for saying, "Hmm...that's odd." The link goes to archive.org because naturally, the post was deleted due to the response - "SHUT UP!" And then of course the flaming about his small penis.

Warning: may not be applicable to you

[mveloso]

Note: Psychological studies performed on US undergraduates generally don't apply to humans in general.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/17x/beware_of_weird_psychological_samples/

Remembering the people who were Psych majors in school, I'd say that they probably were the least representative sample of humanity possible.

Re:Warning: may not be applicable to you

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the many factors they didn't control for. It could just be that people are more 'moral' when they think of authority, and they equate science with authority. Which is sad, since science is the opposite, and rather subversive.

Re:Warning: may not be applicable to you

[Anonymous Coward]

> Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A.(in press). The Weirdest people in the world? (PDF) Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

I checked out that link. Really good discussion going on there. But then I wondered what is Heinrich Heine, a brooding German Romantic poet, doing publishing an article on psychology research papers?

Re:Warning: may not be applicable to you

[Anonymous Coward]

Psychological studies on Americans don't apply to humans in general, either. I think there was a Slashdot post on a psychology paper discussing this a few years ago.

Re:Warning: may not be applicable to you

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that lesswrong is generally an unreliable source for anything.

Blowing stuff up

[Drethon]

Usually when I think of science I think of blowing stuff up...

Re:Blowing stuff up

[Ceriel Nosforit]

Is stuff people, Drethon?

-- A concerned reader

Re:Blowing stuff up

[Anonymous Coward]

Is stuff people, Drethon?

No, it's dolls; because when he thinks about science he realizes he's never going to get laid by a real girl.

Re:Blowing stuff up

[Drethon]

What's a girl? Can it be made using an equation?

Actually managed to marry one that loves blowing up and shooting stuff =)

Political correlation

[femtobyte]

A likely correlative effect: those who "believe" more in science are, on average, people less influenced by the hyper-misogynistic and "fuck you I've got mine" narratives of the US right-wing (proclaimed alongside the anti-intellectual, anti-scientific propaganda of the same groups). The less time you spend watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh, the more likely you are to be both more "scientifically-minded" and less a fan of rape. Scientific rationality and "humanist" motivations have become indelibly tied together in the general public's mind thanks to the right wing propaganda machine's persistent war against both.

Re:Political correlation

[Anonymous Coward]

The brainwashing is working on you.

I always have felt it was ironic that the liberal side of this country wants to allow women to walk around topless, young teens dress like Miley Cyrus, and promote sex outside marriage......don't you think these three things will entice more men to rape women who do this stuff and follow this creed?

And then the left is trying to say they are more concerned with rape than those against the over sexualization of young girls and women?

It's a simple fact that those right wingers you so hate donate more time and money to charity than the left. So the "I've got mine" mentality obviously is not right-wing mentality. Also, where does the anti-intellectual and anti scientific sense come from? I'm not sure where you get this idea. The old trick of saying lies over and over again and getting people to believe them does work, so I'm not sure if you're trying that strategy here or if you simply are blinded to the truth and can only see what your liberal friends push.

I've always loved how the left says they love children and the right hates kids but then the left is pro-abortion and the right is pro-life. Just ironic. I could go on and on.

Ok, now I await the usual insults and hate messages that ignore my points like the school bully beating up the smart kid because all he has left is his hatred.

Re:Political correlation

[femtobyte]

See the above AC post for a perfect example of my point. Note, how the right-wing mindset approaches the issue of rape: it's the fault of the woman for wearing the wrong kind of clothes (seducing those poor, innocent, helpless men into raping them). Such attitudes indicate the typical connection between right-wing ideology, and assigning less blame and approbation to the rapist in a date-rape scenario (she must've deserved it for inviting him in for drinks, right?).

Re:Political correlation

[Anonymous Coward]

I read my news from NPR, Fox News, and Huffington Post. Where do I fit on your generalization of intelligence?

Re:Political correlation

[bluefoxlucid]

In my scientific mind, I believe that most of the "harm" done by rape is just people being pissy little coddlefish. We stand up a whole horrific narrative about rape, burn it into everyone's mind, and then wonder why it's so damaging when someone gets raped. People who don't buy into it see it as an experience to be survived or escaped, and have no abnormal psychological trauma. Many people develop more psychological trauma after being raped due to the whole "group support" thing, feeling like they're not feeling hurt enough because everyone's telling them their experience was so terrible--they begin to believe it more strongly, it becomes worse.

In other words: society's complete demonization of sexual crimes (not just violence, but child molestation) creates most of the pain and suffering from these crimes. Society should instead treat these as crimes, determine that they don't fit in with the so-called rights they feel people have (that is, those guarantees which people require in order to feel secure in society--impossible to guarantee, but supported by enforcement via physical force), and handle them as such. Stop telling victims that they are now damaged, and instead tell them to build a bridge and get the fuck over it and that the criminal perpetrator is the one who bears blame and is defective.

Second, people believe in a just world. This is required for normal human psychology--people believe in a just world because it's required for them to rationalize the world's problems away. Bad things don't happen to good people; bad things happen, but good people get a break and will come out better in the end. Otherwise life is despair. The truth is bad people only need to get away with it and their lives are a hell of a lot better than moral, upstanding folks'. In fact, if you want to make the world a better place to support you, you should be a cutthroat morally bankrupt robber baron until you're rich enough to effect positive change on the communities around you, which achieves both at once.

Science also tells us that women are not men; but people use "scientific" arguments to argue that they're the same. No social or physical differences, no intellectual differences, nothing. Women and men think exactly the same way and are just as capable at all tasks in exactly the same situations at all times. Scientifically this is bunk. Women are more socialist and emotional than men in general. Popular political opinion tends to be egocentric: people want what's good for them, or what sounds good to them; men going "I want/need XXXX for free that I can't afford and rich people should pay for" and women going "we should all share and get along, and nobody should have to go without food and doctors" will garner the same output but are obviously not the same thinking.

Re:Political correlation

[femtobyte]

I said nothing about intelligence, or individual variation. Yes, individual people can be right-wing and smart and rational and scientific. However, you are an exception, and on average, the overall population will generally correlate far-right-wing ideology with Fox News-style anti-intellectualism, and (tepid) progressivism with more "sciencey-sounding" NPR-style media.

Re:Political correlation

[Jmc23]

What if it is their fault? What if the science actually backs that up? Why do women wear high heels shoes when what it's communicating to the male is 'I'm lordosing and ready for sex'? Why do they reveal their breasts when they know the effect it has on males? Doesn't science know how easy it is to override the 'thinking/civilized' mind? Would you walk into an impoverished neighbourhood wearing money for clothes?

Re:Political correlation

[femtobyte]

Why do women wear high heels shoes...

Have you ever considered asking a woman about why she chooses the clothing she wears, instead of simply assuming that all women's lives and decisions revolve around becoming receptacles for your penis? Ever think someone might want to wear clothes that they find attractive (or, perhaps just comfortable), without doing so to beg for non-consensual sex? Would you consider a man wearing spiffy attractive clothes to be asking to get ass-raped by any homosexual who found them attractive? Are you so psychotically out-of-control that you can't keep your dick in your pants at the sight of a little cleavage or tall shoes? Note, many human societies permit women to be topless without constantly being raped... it's not a "natural, scientifically-proven fact" that the typical male is so helplessly weak-willed that they can't hold back from rape sprees at the slightest provocation. If you have personal problems with this, then please take a tiny bit of personal responsibility and lock yourself up away from human society, rather than demand every female wear burqas to prevent your uncontrollable rape-rages.

Re:Political correlation

[Jmc23]

Wow, bitter much? Take your agenda to someone who cares or is actually fighting for the opposite side. I just laid out some suppositions.

Regardless of your crazy-bitch tirade: Does it matter to your lungs what excuse you have for smoking? Regardless of what a woman's reasons for dressing like a slut are, if she's putting her body into a known biological trigger for copulation when she doesn't want to copulate she's just being ignorant and stupid. We might have dreams and ideals of what reality should be like but one shouldn't try living in those dreams and ignoring reality.

p.s. As an aside, most women cite the feeling of power it gives them. What's cosmically funny is that most women don't seem to realize that the source of the power is sexual, and then they get all upset. One day you and them will grow up and accept responsability for your actions.

Re:Political correlation

[Jmc23]

oops, one more thing. Try handing out high heeled shoes in all those primitive societies with bare breasts. They know what lordosis means!

Re:Political correlation

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just as conservative as any fundamentalist Christian. The only difference is that your dogma is feminism.

Re:Political correlation

[femtobyte]

"Conservative" is a ridiculous word to use here (indicating some nostalgia for preserving the status-quo systems of a mythical "good old days"). But, dogmatic? Sure. I'm absolutely dogmatic. I take it as God-given dogma to consider all humans as humans worthy of dignity and respect, including the approximately half of the species without penises. Oh, and I'm Christian, too --- but far too conservative in my Christian beliefs to be a fan of the nineteenth-century heresies that inform present-day "fundamentalist" Christianity.

Re:Political correlation

[BasilBrush]

Science also tells us that women are not men; but people use "scientific" arguments to argue that they're the same. No social or physical differences, no intellectual differences, nothing. Women and men think exactly the same way and are just as capable at all tasks in exactly the same situations at all times.

Citation?

Scientifically this is bunk.

The "bunk" isn't science's, it's yours. You seem to be using your concept of "science" as your personal cover for your symptoms of psychopathy.

Re:Political correlation

[Anonymous Coward]

You come and only smear people you don't like with lies and ignorance. I know you don't listen to Rush L or watch Fox News, but you claim to know all about them.

Liberals spew nothing but hatred for other people. We would be better off without liberal bigotry.

Re:Political correlation

[Zontar The Mindless]

You are in need of some serious help.

Seldom have I seen someone go to such lengths to justify their own psychopathy.

Re:Political correlation

[Livius]

Every woman I've asked about high heels has said they wear them *despite* the discomfort precisely because of the effect they have on the way men behave towards them.

Re:Political correlation

[femtobyte]

But, is it because they want those men to force non-consensual sex on them, which the poster above seemed to think was the message women intend to send through "slutty" clothing choices? Surely, just because someone wants to command attention/respect doesn't mean they want to be raped by any ogling passer-by. Men wear "attractive" clothes in order to up their social status and get more attention/respect from their peers/superiors, too, but one doesn't generally say that a man wearing a classy suit is a "slut" asking to be raped, even if the clothing might be used to attract desired, consensual sexual contact. "Slut-shaming" is a ridiculously misogynist double standard used to support rapists over rape victims.

Re:Political correlation

[Livius]

Blame is not all or nothing.

Re:Political correlation

[femtobyte]

True, but how much more of "some" blame do we really need to be heaping on rape victims, for daring to wear the clothing they want without considering themselves to be the sexual property of a male? I don't care if a woman walks in front of you bare naked, gyrating her hips and bobbling her breasts --- if she doesn't explicitly say "yes" to sex, you don't have any excuse for raping her, whatsoever. Claiming that a woman was "asking for it," when she wasn't "asking for it" any more than a sharply-dressed male is "asking" to be ass-raped, is downright wrong.

Re:Political correlation

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly my friend you have NEVER worn high heels.. Comfortable? Please!

- From a male who has walked a mile in women's shoes!

Re:Political correlation

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm.. I think you just called europe a primitive society. Funny. As a european I just can't understand why americans seem so obsessed with nudity. Nudity does not mean sexual. There is a difference. If you can't see it your head is messed up. Burka wearing muslims are even worse. I think I will never ever understand their reasoning. Or yours. Those reasonings lead to the conclsion that males are not responsible for their actions. That males are nothing but animals. I do realize that might be the case in some muslim countries (and by the news it really looks like sometimes it is). That doesn't mean we want to have it that way over here. I like our women walking around wearing whatever the hell they want, they seem more happy that way. You are a goddamn moron.

Re:Political correlation

[aeoo]

Men wear "attractive" clothes in order to up their social status and get more attention/respect from their peers/superiors, too, but one doesn't generally say that a man wearing a classy suit is a "slut" asking to be raped, even if the clothing might be used to attract desired, consensual sexual contact.

Men's clothes generally (not always) have a different function from women's. Men's clothes are not sexualized, they tend not to hug body lines, they don't reveal much skin, if any, etc. The aesthetic purpose of men's clothes is to communicate status to other men. It's non-sexual. It says, "Look at my expensive and exclusive suit." And in a community which values such displays, this raises status.

Women's clothes often (not always) hug body curves, expose the female anatomy much more so than men's, often expose significant areas of skin and also often close to places conventionally considered "intimate." Women's clothing of this sort is aimed to communicate sexiness to men. It's not meant toward other women. And it's not meant to communicate status. Just sexiness. If you notice, a woman of high status, like the queen, will generally wear conservative clothing which is similar to men's in that it hides the body's shape, doesn't expose much skin, etc.

Is this retarded? Yes it is. Is our society dumb for falling to this? Sure it is. Do women's shape or skin have to be always sexualized? No they do not, but we often do because we are idiots and it's a habit that doesn't go away easily.

Re:Political correlation

[Svenia]

If we take power suits for example, in both gender's situations these are used to express their namesake - 'power'. A man's power suit is more likely to be well covering, not extremely form fitting, while a women's is more likely to be tight in the 'right' places, possibly expose a small amount of breast, could very well in more conservative fields be knee length {as opposed to pants} and definitely includes high heels. The woman of course has the option of wearing a blouse with a higher neck, pants, flat shoes and a less form fitting suit but most times this will make her less competitive in the field in terms of promotion or raises due to looking unkempt. Just as a woman with un-dyed hair (salt and pepper as the men say) or no makeup will always find her position or salary lacking in contrast to her well kept counterpart.

This being said I think both sides of the argument are valid. If you don't want to be robbed, don't go driving your $120k car through the ghetto flashing money out of your wallet. If you don't want to be shot, you don't go walking through a war zone, if you don't want to be raped you don't get black out drunk at a bar in a mini skirt. On the other hand, if women feel their 'dress code' is influencing their safety then change your dress code. I chose my profession because of it's relaxed attire. I don't dye my hair, I don't wear makeup to work, sneakers and jeans. I can be valued for my contribution not how pretty I look today or what push up bra I wear.

That being said, if any female was able to be considered a cross dresser it would be me, I don't dress very feminine really ever and I've gotten plenty of crap for it. Men say women who wear dresses, makeup and heels are 'asking for it', but then turn around and get pissed off when their wife doesn't dress up for them or 'try anymore'. So which way is it? Women who dress up are asking for it, or women who dress like men aren't trying and aren't serious?

Re:Political correlation

[Svenia]

Were they cheap, crappy heels by chance? You get what you pay for when you're walking on a 3-5" stiletto.

Re:Political correlation

[Svenia]

There's a small part of me that can't tell if you're trolling, so if you are I applaud you, I bit.

While I do agree that a lot of the psychological damage that rape does it perpetuated by the media it's not for the reasons you state. The issues people (yes, male and female) face after rape tend to be a feeling of uncleanliness and loss of power. You were forced, against your will, to take someone into your own being that you had no control over despite much struggle. It's that feeling of helplessness that is the problem, which the media then personifies and amplifies. When the courts and society then rules that it was your fault you were raped, whether by walking home alone or wearing heels it becomes even more of a psychological burden.

As for scientifically men and women being built different, yes we have different hormone cycles and physical equipment. Could this perhaps tamper with our day to day thinking? Sure. However let's consider the outliers, the 'butch woman' or the 'feminine man'. What do we classify these as other than outliers? If you have a woman who is fully capable of 'masculine' thinking should she be considered one of the women still and denied whatever rights it is you insinuate to deny (whether it is a job position or voting or validity in her rape claims) due to her physical equipment and would you consider the 'feminine man' to be in the same position however reversed? Should everyone be subjected to a mental evaluation?

Re:Political correlation

[bluefoxlucid]

Citation?

NOW says women are just as strong and capable as men as firefighters. They develop muscle mass in the same way with the same effort and are by default inherently as ready as men without any special accommodation or intensive training.

Political leanings and idealism of women, their ability in leadership and technical roles, and their ability to solve complex social and intellectual problems differs from men's. The results are different, some better and some worse, depending on who is trying to do what; there are general patterns that follow gender, age, cultural upbringing, and so on. There are, again, socio-political groups claiming this isn't true and that a woman will produce exactly the same results with the same training as a man if given the same job, whether centered on physical or mental skills.

Weren't you here for the 90s? What are you, 12?

Re:Political correlation

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation?

Still no citation. I'm pretty sure there are many studies showing differences between men and women, but if you are going to argue scientifically then you should stop being lazy and cite some.

NOW says women are just as strong and capable as men as firefighters. They develop muscle mass in the same way with the same effort and are by default inherently as ready as men without any special accommodation or intensive training.

I am a man with above average strength, but I know there are many (above average) women that are stronger, faster, and can kick my ass. Average people are not firefighters, but above average women and above average men can handle the job.

Re:Political correlation

[bluefoxlucid]

Everything has variation. There's a logical fallacy for this. It's like citing XKCD really.

People don't care about rights. They care about the dog and pony show. They care about people saying they're different, not as capable as other people at certain things, etc. Whether it's true or not, or whether it even impacts them at all, doesn't matter; they'll start screaming about it and crying about being "offended" or something.

In any case, saying that people who think rationally and scientifically are all perfect, altruistic beings with some weird belief that everyone is exactly the same. People who are rational and scientific are going to understand things about the world like how it's not fair, it's not run by karma, it's not run by a vengeful god that's specifically targeting you or going to send bad things your way for being a dick, etc. They're also going to notice patterns and accept them, because statistics are extremely useful--I know a LOT of girls who "need guy friends" or "won't have any girl friends" for reasons that aren't very nice, to say the least (apparently girls have no sense of loyalty and can't be trusted... I guess Linda Tripp would know about that).

In a scientific world, everyone would have long ago accepted my proposal that we sterilize people who violate their breeding allotment. 2 childs per person border pregnancy (if that last one is twins, well, okay, that's fine), with more by application and merit. Merit becomes increasingly difficult: demonstration of higher intellectual achievement, personal achievement, physical fitness, unique genetics, etc. This would maintain biodiversity and remove the weak; of course in our current world, it would just be a bribe haven and we'd have a lot of rich people with 20 kids... oh well. (Yes this is abridged; the entire theory is large, fairly open ended, and essentially revolves around culling congenital defects and unsustainable population expansion without creating population shrinkage or reducing biodiversity, or damaging human rights. Having 18 children is NOT a human right--I had a coworker who had 11 children and another who had 18, this is a real thing.)

Re:Political correlation

[Anonymous Coward]

See the above AC post for a perfect example of my point. Note, how the right-wing mindset approaches the issue of rape: it's the fault of the woman for wearing the wrong kind of clothes (seducing those poor, innocent, helpless men into raping them). Such attitudes indicate the typical connection between right-wing ideology, and assigning less blame and approbation to the rapist in a date-rape scenario (she must've deserved it for inviting him in for drinks, right?).

Using the wrong clothing may increase the chances of getting unwanted attention. If I wear the wrong color while walking through a gang's territory I will get unwanted attention, but that isn't to say that I wouldn't otherwise get attention. If I wear a Kahuku shirt at a Punahou game, I will get unwanted attention. If I have large bills visible while walking down a dark alley, I will get unwanted attention. If I leave my garage door open I shouldn't be surprised if something gets stolen while I am away.

This is not to say that ALL rape victims, victims of gang violence, etc, brought the misfortune on themselves. Indeed, everyone should be able to control themselves. Rape is wrong in all circumstances. Theft and robbery are wrong in all circumstances.

Re:Political correlation

[BasilBrush]

NOW says women are just as strong and capable as men as firefighters.

"NOW" could be any one of a number of possible media sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Now
I don't see any citation that people using '"scientific" arguments to argue that [men & women are] the same.'

In fact the most widely read and quoted text on the topic is "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". A 1992 book that emphasises how different men and women are. Very popular with feminists.

Weren't you here for the 90s? What are you, 12?

In in my late 40s, and have experienced at least 4 different waves of feminism over different decades. 2 with different partners who espoused them. It's a mistake men sometimes make to think that feminists are arguing that men and women are different. In fact they have all been different arguments to the effect that women are either equal or better than men. Definitely not the same.

As regards firefighters, the feminist argument tends to be that if particular women can reach the strength and other requirements required of firefighters then they should be allowed to be firefighters. Either you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding. Or the media outlet you are referring to is a particularly poor or provocative one. "Link bait" existed before the internet. Only then it was called sensationalism (and before that "yellow journalism", though I'm not THAT old.)

Re:Political correlation

[aeoo]

Men say women who wear dresses, makeup and heels are 'asking for it', but then turn around and get pissed off when their wife doesn't dress up for them or 'try anymore'. So which way is it?

Men, like women, are simply human, and therefore confused about what they want. They want it all, even if their desires are mutually contradictory. They want a sex demon in bed who becomes a prim and proper lady on command. They want someone independent who can think for herself, but who will also cook for you every day. They want the aliveness and freshness of an uninhibited woman and yet they also want proper decorum and don't want to participate in embarrassing situations which would become natural when spending much time together with a very spontaneous and uninhibited woman. Is this madness? Of course it is. We are crazy. All of us. We want all the best qualities of both the sane and the insane minds. We want safety and freedom. Etc.

I basically agree with everything you said. All the talk we hear along the lines of "she was asking for it" is complete garbage, no doubt about it. But at the same time, it's idiotic to deny the fact that our society is quite lopsided and asymmetric with regard to sexuality. We, as a society, generally don't have the same expectations of women as we do of men, just as you have noted. For example, a woman is expected to look good, but a man is not (not to the same high standard anyway). A chest is seen as mundane and boring in a man, but intimate, sexy and alluring in a woman. It's crazy to try to pretend this isn't happening. And sometimes this lopsidedness hurts women and sometimes it hurts men too. We are silly creatures and we often make life harder than it needs to be.

this makes little sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

In what way specifically does a "belief in science" influence morality at all? Futhermore, what the hell is "belief in science"? Science was invented to strip away the need for belief by extrapolating facts. This entire study is full of bakas.

Re: this makes little sense.

[techprophet]

How would you phrase it then? "Value placed on the scientific method" would be what I'd go for, but it doesn't communicate the thought nearly as succinctly as "belief in science"

Re:this makes little sense.

[jedidiah]

Sounds like a nice example of "correlation does not imply causation". They have found two beliefs associated with the same sort of bias and managed to demonstrate that they occur together in some people.

Re:this makes little sense.

[Nadaka]

Science does not remove belief. It removes the baselessness of belief. Belief in that which is proven is viable under science. Belief in that which is disproved is not. There are shades of grey in between those two absolutes.

To get metaphorical, belief is tempered by the flame of science. The ephemeral wisps of faith are burned away, leaving behind a purer stronger truth.

misandry and "science"

[Anonymous Coward]

This confirms my view that feminist (misandric) people think that their male hate bigotry is based on science and not on emotions, similar to the nazy germany where racism was "science".

Re:misandry and "science"

[Joining Yet Again]

This confirms

It confirms nothing except that some people get away with bullshit studies.

feminist (misandric)

Oh, I can do the same thing: communists (mass murderers), capitalists (child enslavers), Microsoft users (clinical retards).

Re:misandry and "science"

[Anonymous Coward]

nazy germany

It's "Nazi Germany", you ignorant fucktwat! And we weren't racist, we hated all gays and Jews equally regardless of their race.

--Sincerely, A Spelling Nazi

Re:misandry and "science"

[Nadaka]

And this confirms you can not really spell Nazi.

These people don't know how to conduct a study

[Karmashock]

Simply using scientific language isn't exactly science. It could rather be going after specificity. If you prime me with a bunch of IF/THEN TRUE/FALSE terms and then ask if something is wrong I'm going to be more inclined to give a more literal and less nuanced opinion.

For example, is it wrong to feed the bears? Of course it is... its against the rules, encourages the bears to see humans as a food source, and makes them less inclined to gather food from the wild. So... its wrong. But at the same time its not especially immoral.

If you prime me with true false information I'll just say its wrong. But if you expand the point there might be more going on there.

I don't think science has anything especially to do with morality. It does have a great deal to do with truth seeking but its truth seeking for its own sake and not some higher calling. That is not to say scientist are not moral people or that they're not helping humanity. Merely that there is no causal link between morality and science.

Re:These people don't know how to conduct a study

[onkelonkel]

A fed bear is a dead bear!

Re:These people don't know how to conduct a study

[Hatta]

For example, is it wrong to feed the bears? Of course it is... its against the rules, encourages the bears to see humans as a food source, and makes them less inclined to gather food from the wild. So... its wrong. But at the same time its not especially immoral.

What exactly do you mean? You just described all the reasons why it is immoral to feed wild bears, and then said it wasn't immoral. What's your argument that it's not immoral?

Re:These people don't know how to conduct a study

[Karmashock]

Its a matter of perspective.

Are pets wrong? Is it wrong to be nice to an animal? Bears are fairly intelligent so you could form all sorts of relationships with them.

Take the difference between a circus and a zoo.

The animals that perform tricks in zoos are generally held by many to be exploited animals that are abused for the amusement of an audience. While the "residents" of the zoo are considered humanely and well taken care of... but what does any of that really mean?

Again, it can get very complicated depending on context and various variables. My point was that if you forced me to give a yes or no answer to a complicated question... I would answer yes or no. Effectively suppressing the shades of gray doesn't make them vanish... we're just temporarily ignoring them.

Re:These people don't know how to conduct a study

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I think the problem is the unclear definition of morality....

http://xkcd.com/309/

Re:These people don't know how to conduct a study

[Anonymous Coward]

You are confusing ethics with morality. Stop that.

Science is about truth

[Kuruk]

The pursuit about understanding can only go one way.

Science is about truth.

Faith can be about anything. Its make believe after all.

Re:Science is about truth

[Jmc23]

Except that science isn't about truth, it's about adequate descriptions to allow for control. The descriptions, while useful, are still make believe.

Faith is actually about truth. Whether you choose to believe that 'truth' is another story.

Re:Science is about truth

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. When someone talks about science as superior then they are talking about one thing. When go to reason about something they are doing something related but not exactly the same. When they sit down to do something scientifically they are using again a related but different thing that is defined as science. The first is science as the set of natural laws that govern the universe, the second is science as a logic based reasoning method, and the third is our model of the first through our human implementation of the second. People will often arrogantly conflate the three and don't really grok it when people disagree with them.

Re:Science is about truth

[Kuruk]

Rubbish

Science is truth. Never ending testing. Every chink hammered and checked. No doubt left un checked.

Then everyone on the planet checking it if they like and calling foul.

Nothing is more pure than science.

Re:Science is about truth

[Kuruk]

Nope

Science is just that

Not three things not one thing. It is information.

Deal with it

Re:Science is about truth

[Jmc23]

ah, science fanboi you are.

It's better to understand than to worship.

Re:Science is about truth

[Kuruk]

Yes I love to understand. The more I learn the less I understand.

Re:Science is about truth

[Anonymous Coward]

Science can't be just information because I have information critical to my life that has no truth value that can be identified by modern science. If science is just scientifically verifiable information then it is entirely inadequate to govern my thought processes and the argument that I give up belief for science is ridiculous.

Re:Science is about truth

[Jmc23]

Apparently!!

Re:Science is about truth

[RespekMyAthorati]

Well, strictly speaking, science is about filtering out bullshit. What is left may be truth, or it may be that some bullshit remains.
Faith, on the other hand, is about saying "I just know it's true", even when you don't.

Re:Science is about truth

[Kuruk]

amen

Re:Science is about truth

[Kuruk]

No science is about proving not filtering.

Make a test that proves what you say. Let others repeat it and comment.

If your still standing after the world has checked what you say it becomes science until it is broken. Science is like the devil. It loves to be broken, corrected and tested to the limit and beyond.

God is a pussy. Just believing my ass.

Is this a real university?

[Joining Yet Again]

The fuck is "wrongness", and how does one rate it?

And why does "condemning an act more harshly" make you more moral? Does this mean scientists are more likely to support Sharia law? you know, that legal system based entirely on science and reason.

Re:Is this a real university?

[Anonymous Coward]

And why does "condemning an act more harshly" make you more moral?

If you want rapists to go prison for 1 billion years rather than a mere 100 years, then clearly you're far more "moral" than the other cretins.

I've actually seen this sort of broken logic used before to conclude that pornography makes people callous towards the suffering of women...

Re:Is this a real university?

[Nadaka]

how is sharia based on science and reason? Apostasy and Heresy are punishable by death under sharia, where they should be rewarded and encouraged under a scientific and reasonable system of law.

Re:Is this a real university?

[CrimsonAvenger]

whoosh....

Re:Is this a real university?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it is lack of truthiness?

Related perspective: religiosity and intelligence

[G3ckoG33k]

The relationship between religiosity and intelligence is also intriguing and not too dissimilar in its foundations.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

No low IQ people are atheists. :D

I guess that phenomenon is related to the current study on morals and beliefs in science.

Scientist discover that...

[Anonymous Coward]

scientists have above average morals.

In other news, 90% of all people say they are above average drivers.

Re:Scientist discover that...

[93 Escort Wagon]

Actually, the fundamental reason these scientists conducted this study was to figure out why women wouldn't sleep with them.

Re:Scientist discover that...

[smellsofbikes]

In other news, 90% of all people say they are above average drivers.

99% of all people have above the average number of eyes and fingers.
Not all distributions are gaussian.

Re:Scientist discover that...

[pscottdv]

Yeah. But driving ability probably is.

when the science is biology - human anatomy

[themushroom]

my thoughts certainly aren't moral ;-)

Re:when the science is biology - human anatomy

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't limit it that much. I'd certainly judiciously screw over other people to get my family ahead if I reasoned only by my scientific training.

nonsense squared

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) Since when is harshness condemnation the definition of moral?
(2) Since when was a psychological priming study science?

Worked well in WW2

[Anonymous Coward]

With eugenics.

finding mr. perfect

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't understand woman sometimes.
they do their hair, add makeup and dress up for hours.
they do this so they STAND out, saying "notice me!"?
then you talk to them and they're all "go away. don't look at me."
my take is that they're really dressing up for the off chance
of crossing path with MR. PURFECT.
everybody else is just collateral emotional wreak after the encounter.
-
or maybe "bi-polar" and "being a girl" is the same? having two competing "X" chromosomes and all : P

everyone wants to believe their class is better

[roc97007]

Scientists want to believe they are more moral, liberals want to believe they are more intelligent, etc etc etc and people exist to tell them what they want to hear. This is not news.

Makes sense to me

[frovingslosh]

Seems right. After all, I know that thinking about religion makes me want to do evil and go out and kill people.

In a related study

[jriding]

The association between religion and the belief that âoe I am pure and you are going to hellâ is so ingrained that merely thinking about it can trigger more immoral behavior, according to a study by researchers at the University of Kansas. The researchers hypothesized that there is a deep-seated perception that my religion makes me better then you â" its emphasis on myth-seeking, self-importance and irrationality privileges above all else. The researchers conducted four separate studies to test this. In the first, participants read a bible passage of a date-rape and were asked to rate the 'wrongness' of the offense. Those reporting greater belief in religion condemned the victim more harshly stating âoeshe probably deserved itâ. This was also followed up with the strong believe that if it was a âoerealâ rape then her body would just reject any possibility of pregnancy.

Really?

[roc97007]

Reeeeeeealy? Weapons research? (physical, chemical, biological, your choice) Profitizing common herbs into expensive medicines? Researching social engineering? Moral? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weapons are neither here nor there on the morality scale, given they've historically proven capable of saving lives. Nuclear ICBMs, for example, pretty much prevented us from ending the 20th century in a horrific bloodbath - not that we didn't try our hardest to achieve it.

But your heart's in the right place, so let me Godwin this article for you:

Mengele was certainly very moral, the way he subjected Jews to horrific scientific experimentation, amirite guys?

Bullshit article is bullshit.

Time

[The Cat]

"Greater belief in science?"

"Emphasis on truth-seeking?"

"Science as a moral pursuit?"

Science is an academic discipline. It is not concerned with truth, morals or beliefs. It is concerned with fact. Science is the process of deriving fact from hypothesis through observation and experimentation.

Facts are data. Truth is meaning. No matter what experiment is being conducted, science cannot ever provide meaning. It can only provide facts.

Science has absolutely no connection whatsoever to morals. They are two utterly disconnected fields of human endeavor.

When people start advocating a greater "belief" in science, it leads one to conclude that either science is becoming a religion or these people are trying to fill a void in their lives.

Re:Related perspective: religiosity and intelligen

[Anonymous Coward]

All that relationship proves is that those with high IQ are quick to assume something based on little fact. There is no fact at all that there is no God, whereas there are many facts that point to God existing.

Please name one fact that proves God does not exist.......you won't be able to.

However, if you look at the big bang, most people don't realize that the chances of the big bang resulting in the creating of molecular bindings is so remote that the reason for the whole multiverse theory is to account for this odd possibliity. They had to have some answer for how our particular universe came to be as it is and so the answer was well, "We're simply part of a trillion trillion trillion etc number of universes. Most of those have nothing but explosions going on and ours is one of the few universes that can support the building blocks of life" --See entropy.

I'm not a scientist and don't explain this all perfectly, but see http://magisreasonfaith.org/pdf/Magis_FactSheet.pdf for more info.

Deja Vu

[alysion]

The study was published in March and was discussed here in March, with 315 comments: http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/03/30/1857216/does-scientific-literacy-make-people-more-ethical

Science by definition is AMORAL

[UnknownSoldier]

An ideology / process by definition does not morals, aka amoral. Only scientists are moral.

Science doesn't ask "Can we build nukes?" nor "Should we build nukes?" only _scientists_.

Re:Science by definition is AMORAL

[UnknownSoldier]

grammar fix: ... does not have morals ...

Re:Science by definition is AMORAL

[c0d3g33k]

You're right of course, but your argument isn't particularly insightful, IMHO, because the distinction between people and things are understood by most people. That's why when people want to specifically refer to the ideology/process you label as just "Science" they use the name "Scientific Method". The term "Science" has different meanings, granted, but loosely seems to be shorthand for "scientific research done by scientists" (individually, in aggregate or all scientific activity as a whole). As such, the mention of morality doesn't quite seem out of line, since scientists are part of the blanket term.

Re:Science by definition is AMORAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Science doesn't ask "Can we build nukes?" nor "Should we build nukes?" only _scientists_.

Well, that particular question can be considered a problem in Game Theory. Though, you can argue Game Theory is nothing but a pile of dusty books, and it is the Game Theorists who ask the question.

You could also argue religion is also by definition "Amoral" using the same argument. Indeed, you could go on to say Morality itself is Amoral; it only has meaning when being considered by humans.

Re:Related perspective: religiosity and intelligen

[Nadaka]

There is a correlation between atheism and intelligence. But there are still plenty of idiotic atheists out there.

RTFA

[ranton]

The researchers performed four studies, and only one was looking for mere correlation. Unfortunately that is the only one the summary mentions. One of the other studies primed the subjects with scientific words in a crossword puzzle, and just thinking about those words caused people to behave more morally. Now I am not sure how good the controls in their experiment were but it looks like they tried to remove correlation from the other three studies.

You can attack their methodology, but based on their research there really was a causal relationship between scientific thinking and moral behavior.

Re:RTFA

[femtobyte]

I read the article. My point is that I suspect the appearance of causality, even in those cases where participants were conditioned with "scientific" or "non-scientific" lingo beforehand, is mediated by political propaganda, which form a subconscious association between "science" and political liberalism (thanks to the right wing's persistent popular use of anti-intellectualism in conjunction with anti-human ideologies). Talk about "sciencey" things, and you'll fire up the parts of a typical American's brain that are also generally activated in more "politically liberal" contexts; not because science is fundamentally more "socially progressive" in itself, but because the American right has worked to systematically exclude rational, "scientific-sounding" discourse in the public sphere in favor of racist/sexist/emotional appeals.

Re:RTFA

[mcl630]

I read the article. My point is that I suspect the appearance of causality, even in those cases where participants were conditioned with "scientific" or "non-scientific" lingo beforehand, is mediated by political propaganda, which form a subconscious association between "science" and political liberalism (thanks to the right wing's persistent popular use of anti-intellectualism in conjunction with anti-human ideologies). Talk about "sciencey" things, and you'll fire up the parts of a typical American's brain that are also generally activated in more "politically liberal" contexts; not because science is fundamentally more "socially progressive" in itself, but because the American right has worked to systematically exclude rational, "scientific-sounding" discourse in the public sphere in favor of racist/sexist/emotional appeals.

A very interesting take... I wish I had mod points. Your hypothesis could be tested by repeating the study in another nation with a different political atmosphere.

Re:RTFA

[RespekMyAthorati]

All made use of a technique called âoeprimingâ in which participants are exposed to words relevant to a particular category in order to increase its cognitive accessibility.

Unfortunately, the use of this priming technique is about as "scientific" as a ouija board.

PLoS ONE

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotters: please don't reproduce anything from PLoS ONE. The journal is a notorious joke.

Papers I have reviewed for PLoS ONE (in my field of biology) have been poorly written garbage.

PLoS ONE is where shitty datasets and negative results go to die after being written up in the most lazy way possible.

A Reaction to Other Studies

[chadkennedyonline]

I think this may be in response to at least one other study showing a similar effect when subjects were primed with religious concepts: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/18/9/803.abstract

Tell That to Aperture and GLADOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the poor employees @ Aperture Laboratories, who gave their lives installing the morality core, to stop GLADOS from flooding the enrichment center with a deadly neurotoxin. And she was in it for the SCIENCE after all.

Same thing with regards to a certain Mr.Cave Johnson. "Safe science? why not marry safe science if you love it so much". Not very moral, especially that using hobos for testing volunteers. Who wants to make $60?

Let alone using his own employees as test subjects.

its emphasis on...

[Anonymous Coward]

its emphasis on truth-seeking, impartiality and rationality

Proof that most people don't know anything about science.

Collapse of society imminent

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

The problem today is that scientists can't do anything without acceptance from the moral masses. Want to cure cancer, you can, just don't you dare have a cage full of diseased mice in your lab because that is wrong. Want to cure genetic diseases, you can, just don't you dare try to use stem cells because some people consider that abortion. Want to solve world hunger, you can, just don't you dare splice a tomato gene with an eggplant. Want to prove the world is round, you can, just be respectful of those that believe in 2000 years of lies and intolerance to truth.

I agree there are obvious scientific research that is immoral and unacceptable, but the problem now is that if this study is a truthful indication of the state of scientific research today, then science will fail, and with it, our civilization will collapse.

It is a common theory that the Roman Empire fell is because in essence stupid people out grew the ability for the intellects to solve their problems or improve social conditions. I'm afraid the trend is repeating. FUD is the new God.

Re:Collapse of society imminent

[ImprovOmega]

The problem today is that scientists can't do anything without acceptance from the moral masses. Want to cure cancer, you can, just don't you dare have a cage full of diseased mice in your lab because that is wrong. Want to cure genetic diseases, you can, just don't you dare try to use stem cells because some people consider that abortion. Want to solve world hunger, you can, just don't you dare splice a tomato gene with an eggplant. Want to prove the world is round, you can, just be respectful of those that believe in 2000 years of lies and intolerance to truth.

I agree there are obvious scientific research that is immoral and unacceptable, but the problem now is that if this study is a truthful indication of the state of scientific research today, then science will fail, and with it, our civilization will collapse.

Why is it obviously immoral or unacceptable? Who is the arbiter of that? To an evangelical Christian using embryonic stem cells in genetic therapy research is "obviously" immoral. You're quibbling about where to draw the line. If you want to make an argument like that then you need to build a solid foundation to rest it on. You need a framework to go off of - and if that's not a religious framework then it needs to be a rigorous philosophical framework and you really need to get it accepted by the majority to have it fly. The big problem we're experiencing right at the moment is that we don't agree on the framework underpinning our moral philosophy. So what is fine and good for 20% of the population is abhorrent for another 20% who all want to do something that offends another 20%. Everyone wants to go their own way and chaos is resulting.

Re:Collapse of society imminent

[unapersson]

Want to solve world hunger, you can, just don't you dare splice a tomato gene with an eggplant.

It depends if the price of solving world hunger comes at the cost of allowing you to turn a common foodstuff into a patentable product for which you control distribtion. So less solving world hunger and more creating a new dependency. The whole frankenfoods stuff is a useful distraction.

This is complete nonsense.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is about as far from science as you can get.

Re:Related perspective: religiosity and intelligen

[Anonymous Coward]

Please name one fact that proves God does not exist.......you won't be able to.

Please name one fact that proves God does exist.......you won't be able to.

Science and Morality

[wrackspurt]

"Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong)."

Science has certainly been used for bad ends and bad people have certainly done science. Maybe science is taking on the trappings of a new faith. Faith in a good future for all or some such thing. It may be that scientists are coming to be viewed as a new priestly caste whose tireless pursuit of truth places them on a higher moral plane. Peer review would suggest a higher moral standard. Faith needs to be prescriptive and in some cases predictive and it needs to tell a story the tribal members can subscribe to. The posted study may be an inkling of science as a religion, as faith. I post this tongue firmly in cheek but with a little concern given my species seemingly timeless need for a faith. Past faiths have relied on moral laws handed down to the faithful and in impoverished environments those laws have been used to pass moral judgement and to accord entitlement to resources. To the scientifically illiterate science today represents the new laws of the universe and the applied sciences give us most of what we have. Our old minds in a new age may just be dressing up science in priestly robes. Or it may be complete nonsense or both.

Re:Related perspective: religiosity and intelligen

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious now if we eliminated religion if people would actually be smarter, they would test smarter, or if all the stupid people would just be aethists.

Not surprising from a religious point of view.

[Anonymous Coward]

I find this fascinating, but as a Christian (I know... prepare your fireballs), I don't find this surprising.

Firstly, I'm more than happy to acknowledge that there are an enormous number of desperately uninformed religious folk in the world and many say things (mostly regarding creationism) in total ignorance of honest, scientific findings. I personally appreciate the genius of the study of evolutionary biology and I continue to pray that the Christian community be educated about science, rather than approaching it with uncalled-for skepticism.

However, the reason I don't this relationship surprising is that at the heart of faith in any religion is humility. A vast amount of knowledge tends to puff men up and probably makes them unwilling to look outside their own intelligence for answers. Pursuing faith forces us to acknowledge that we have a need for a greater being, intelligence, power or spirit. It humbles us because we trust it something other than our own effort or intelligence.

In response to your post, I hear the voices of thousands saying, "Yes, we may be stupid and uninformed and ultimately too weak to save ourselves, but we realize it, and that's why we have faith."

Re:Not surprising from a religious point of view.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the most insightful and inspiring comments I've ever read. Turns my crappy day into an okay day. Thank you.

Re:Not surprising from a religious point of view.

[nedlohs]

As always it all depends how you look at things.

I'm not sure that thinking that the all powerful being who created the entire universe cares about you personally and more than that cares about your opinions on things and will make adjustments to the plans of his omniscient mind according to them has humility at heart.

Re:Not surprising from a religious point of view.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is madness. It's not humility to say I am mad therefore I prefer faith to medication - it is crazy. This is what I find disturbing about both Islam and Christianity (I'm sure there are others however these two in particular, show fault often and loudly), it's this juxtaposition of partially formed thoughts that often conclude with either a random or directly opposite assertion of that which can be induced from the prepositional line of thought. It is circular logic, nearly for the sake of circular logic, there is a noticeable absence of self awareness or empiricism applied when discussions regarding faith are brought up. And even weirder for me, is that this is not the definition of humility it is the definition of apathy. Faith is not believing because faith is believing, faith is believing because there is not much else to go on, a belief that the odds may not be in your favor but you will conquer. Comments like yours above perpetually make me feel as though the world is shrinking around me. You can pursue your faith in a logical manner, but a great many choose not to - "because" the bible or some pastor or such said so -> "because I said so"

Re:Not surprising from a religious point of view.

[TheSwift]

Accidentally posted my original comment as an anon coward, so I'm responding as the first person who posted this subject line. I hope to make an effort at protecting your faith in humanity and perhaps more specifically, in the ignorant Christians you indict. If you're just a troll, then I'm sorry I'm wasting my time, but I hope that's not the case.

I never said, nor would I ever say would refuse to take medication because of my faith. Ironically enough, I am currently applying to medical school, but I think this is a digression from your main point, so we'll move on.

I think you're talking about a good many Christians who say they refuse to give science a chance because it might possibly contradict their faith. I agree with you. That is a bigoted and fearful response that demonstrates these individuals aren't confident enough of their own faith because they fear educating themselves would cause them to lose it.

As you suggest, I don't think that faith and an appreciation of science are mutually exclusive. In fact, just as people who are frustrated with Christians because they feel that science is incompatible with faith (and I agree, I'm frustrated too), so I find fault with scientists who feel they are unable to explore faith because it is stupid and therefore incompatible with science. Neither of these extremes is true.

I admit that there are a good many Christians who are full of pride - perhaps I'm one of them. What I meant was that it does take humility to admit that I have a need to seek a spiritual solution for what I find in myself to be a spiritual problem. You asked for empiricism on this point and I simply confess that I'm unable to provide it for you, other than that I am an incomplete individual without my faith in God. I consider that a humble admission.

Just as you ask Christians to give acceptance to the idea that science is a real and honest pursuit, so would I ask you to accept that faith is an acceptable pursuit of others, regardless of whether you choose to partake in it.

Re:Related perspective: religiosity and intelligen

[Nadaka]

Most likely? All the stupid people who accept religion just because would accept atheism just because.

Re:Related perspective: religiosity and intelligen

[Anonymous Coward]

Science proponents: replace all your reasoning with our fact-based logic model of the universe designed by creatures evolved to process a handful of fuzzy things with heuristics.

belief in science

[kruach aum]

The beauty of science is that you don't have to believe in it, in the sense of 'to believe' meaning 'to accept on someone else's authority.' I point this out because I have a feeling I would be ranked extremely highly on this 'belief in science' scale while I consider myself to not believe in science at all; the authority of science derives from empirical testing and reason, not belief.

Re:belief in science

[Dcnjoe60]

The beauty of science is that you don't have to believe in it, in the sense of 'to believe' meaning 'to accept on someone else's authority.' I point this out because I have a feeling I would be ranked extremely highly on this 'belief in science' scale while I consider myself to not believe in science at all; the authority of science derives from empirical testing and reason, not belief.

The beauty of science is that unless you have conducted the research yourself or performed the proofs yourself, you in fact are accepting things on someone else's authority. In philosophical parlance this is known as accepting the testimony of others. It holds true whether one relies on the testimony of learned scientists or religious leaders. In both cases, a belief system is created, codified, passed down and accepted by others.

Unless one does the empirical testing for themself, they do not have first had knowledge of the phenomenon being tested but rely on the testimony of others. How do we know the earth revolves around the sun? Most of us have not down the equations or performed the experiments to prove it, we have excepted the testimony of others. Granted if enough experts testify to the same thing it adds credence to their testimony, but still, we are accepting something as true as an act of faith that the others are correct.

As such, while science does involve empirical testing, its authority relies very much on the testimony of those who conduct that testing, in otherwords, belief. In the end, almost everything we "know" we don't actually know, but instead we believe - including where the authority of science comes from.

Disclaimer: I am not saying scientific belief is the same as religious belief nor am I raising religious inquiry upto the level of scientific inquiry, so please do not go there.

Re:belief in science

[JakeBurn]

Except that only works in theory and for very few people at that. For the vast majority of people, their faith in their fellow man leads to a 'belief' in things that are called science but far from it. Loving science is what has turned me into a very harsh critic of many so-called sciences. The more I read about carbon dating, and how little science is actually involved, the more I realized that most people who hate religion have just as much faith in their false beliefs.
" the authority of science derives from empirical testing and reason, not belief." I agree completely. There isn't any empirical testing or reason that would lead one to believe that an assumption, based on other assumptions, taken along with yet more assumptions, (all of which could radically alter the end result), somehow make for good science. If its something that could, at a future date, be proven correctly then the journey is worthy by scientific standards. In the case of carbon dating there is absolutely zero reason for anyone to even begin to make those assumptions except to take a contrary position against a religion that says the Earth is young. There really can't be any arguments for pushing for certain results except that one thing. That to me makes the fact that millions of people who strive to maintain faith in it as a real science are wrongfully standing proud under nothing more than a broken system of belief.
What you say sounds good, but only in a world where "scientists" don't proclaim pseudo-science as fact and where most people gladly accept it as such.

Re:belief in science

[kruach aum]

Yes, it is true that epistemologists and philosophers of science very badly want testimony to count as a justification of a belief (in the technical sense), but that was not my point. The beauty of science is that ultimately, testimony does not HAVE to be the justification of a scientific claim: we have reason and empirical tests to fulfil that function. In epistemically less rigorous contexts, like our everyday lives, testimony is perfectly fine. I am willing to accept that there is water in a bottle I buy from a store simply because it's labelled as being water. What's special about science is that we can crank up the epistemic rigour all the way and (in principle) find out for ourselves whether a claim that is being made is true or false. There are plenty of domains where this is not the case. Religion (which you mentioned) is one, and so are certain social situations (unless you're willing to involve, say, Jerry Springer). In practice we often do end up relying on testimony, but, again, the beauty of science is that I (you (we, as a species)) don't have to.

Re:belief in science

[Anonymous Coward]

This was well said.

I would add something else as well. Most scientific thinking is founded on the notion that everything, at least in principle, is knowable. Such areas that are unknowable are tightly bounded and well-defined.

Most religious thinking is founded on the notion that that large bodies of knowledge are not knowable. See the mind of God, mysteries of universe, articles of faith, miracles and so forth. There is often a connected idea that unknowable matters can spring into existence anywhere and at any time. This is due to the agency of the deity.

Re:belief in science

[xski]

The beauty of science is that you don't have to believe in it, in the sense of 'to believe' meaning 'to accept on someone else's authority.' ... the 'authority' of science derives from empirical testing and reason, not belief.

This should be burned into the minds of schoolchildren everywhere.

Re:belief in science

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The beauty of science is that you don't have to believe in it, in the sense of 'to believe' meaning 'to accept on someone else's authority.'

I'm very much a "fan" of science and, for all intents and purposes, an atheist, but I dislike this selling point quite a bit. I dislike it for the same reason I dislike "everyone can look at the code" as a selling point for open source software: while technically true, it's essentially worthless.

Only a relative few people are actually going to peruse an application's source code or attempt to replicate a scientific experiment. Everyone else just accepts the non-maliciousness of the software or the truthfulness of the information based on faith, trust, or any number of other reasons. (It can actually be worse in the case of science, because there are scientific experiments that not everyone can replicate on their own. For example, how can I, as an individual, replicate the experiment that led to the tentative confirmation of the existence of the Higgs boson?)

Re:belief in science

[Dcnjoe60]

Yes, it is true that epistemologists and philosophers of science very badly want testimony to count as a justification of a belief (in the technical sense), but that was not my point. The beauty of science is that ultimately, testimony does not HAVE to be the justification of a scientific claim: we have reason and empirical tests to fulfil that function. In epistemically less rigorous contexts, like our everyday lives, testimony is perfectly fine. I am willing to accept that there is water in a bottle I buy from a store simply because it's labelled as being water. What's special about science is that we can crank up the epistemic rigour all the way and (in principle) find out for ourselves whether a claim that is being made is true or false. There are plenty of domains where this is not the case. Religion (which you mentioned) is one, and so are certain social situations (unless you're willing to involve, say, Jerry Springer). In practice we often do end up relying on testimony, but, again, the beauty of science is that I (you (we, as a species)) don't have to.

It's not that they want testimony to count as a justification of a belief, but without actually conducting the experiments or working the proofs or experiencing the phenomenon in question, the human person simply cannot know something to be true and must rely on the testimony of others -- or simply we cannot know but must believe something to be true.

Most people would say the earth revolves around the sun is a true statement. But, how do we actually know that? Have we made the observations and done the math to verify that? Most likely no, we accept it based on what experts in the field have told us. When enough experts in a field agree, we accept it, but that doesn't mean that we as individuals "know" it to be true, instead we can only "believe" it to be true. Most people would agree that the earth is round and there is a lot of evidence to support this such as seeing the curvature of the horizon if you are high enough, However, unless you are one of the view to go into space and see it for yourself, from the vantage point of being on earth, you can not know with certainty that it is round, that is unless you do a lot of math and calculations, which most of us have not done, so instead we rely on the testimony of others and we "believe" that the earth is round.

This is exactly how religion works, too. Followers believe based on the testimony of others. Now there is one big distinction. With science, most of us can, at least for rudimentary things, conduct the experiments or observations ourselves so that we could actually "know" something to be true instead of believing based on the testimony of others. While that is technically true, most of us never do, and instead we walk around thinking we know all of this stuff, when in fact, we know very little, but we do believe a lot.

So, I would challenge your very last statement by saying that instead of we often end up relying on testimony that we almost always rely on testimony, even when given the option of not having to.

Re:belief in science

[Fatalis]

Radiometric dating is a tool of the devil, clearly. How can anyone believe the absurd idea that decay rates of radioactive elements could be used to date materials. All these so-called scientists are either brainwashed or satanist atheists. We need more clear-headed people like you to explain that the real truth is found in the creation science literature, not in the manufactured lies of geochemistry or just about any other accepted scientific discipline. They'll see when the Rapture comes, though...

Re:belief in science

[RespekMyAthorati]

The more I read about carbon dating, and how little science is actually involved

The principles of radioactive decay were established more than a century ago, and tens of thousands of experiments have been performed that verify it.
How much science do you need?

Re:belief in science

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll start testing once the scientific theories lose their predictive power. Truth is for philosphers. Science is about prediction and structure.

Re:belief in science

[JakeBurn]

"Radiometric dating is a tool of the devil, clearly."
"The principles of radioactive decay were established more than a century ago, and tens of thousands of experiments have been performed that verify it. "
And here come the sheep. Baaah! Speak on brother. Tell me again how the FACT that a certain isotope decays at a set rate somehow provides a strong enough correlation between its own age and the age of the item in question that it becomes fact. Please, Preacher Man, give this ignorant heathen your wisdom! How can anyone but the basest, most profoundly stupid person jump from;
We know the rate of decay of C14 is 5730 years so we now can say with certainty, (specifically and only because we know this one fact), that:

1. The rate of carbon 14 creation in the upper atmosphere has been constant for the entirety of Earth's existence even though the atmospheric conditions that allow its creation have been anything but constant. Which means...

2. The proportions of Carbon 14 and Carbon 12 to all other elements on the Earth has been constant for the last 5 Billion years.

3. The proportion of all isotopes of Carbon to other elements in a creature's mass has remained constant since the first life crawled out of the primordial ooze.

3. It is a complete and verifiable truth that every specimen tested for its age was found today with exactly the same number of C12 and C14 as the moment it died EXCEPT for those created due to radioactive decay.

4. The equipment used to determine how many C14 and C12 atoms a specimen has is infallible and is guaranteed to not miss a single atom.

5. When dating the same sample multiple times finds that a specimen is between an range of ages in the hundreds of millions that it is perfectly acceptable to discard every date in that range but the one that fits the one you want it to be.

Tell me what science magically turns those five ASSUMPTIONS into FACTS and I will gladly join your system of beliefs. You have faith that those assumptions are indeed facts because someone smarter than you said they were and you lack the intelligence to think for yourself. Its a religion of stupidity, not science. Any one of those things not being exactly what you assume it to be, (without even the smallest bit of proof to back up your claim), means that the end result could be radically different and therefore scientifically useless.

Re:belief in science

[david_thornley]

I accept most things on somebody else's authority. So do you.

There are some really big differences between religion and science, though. In science, there are objective measures for validating or invalidating statements. In fact, the best way to make a big name for yourself in science is to say something different from what is generally believed, and back it up. This makes science fundamentally self-correcting. In addition, I can do some random verification on my own, which not only helps directly but also indirectly, in establishing trust.

In religion, there are no objective measures for validating or invalidating beliefs. Here in the US, the Episcopal church is for allowing same-sex marriages, while the Catholic church is against that. Both sides point at basic principles they hope I share, and make plausibility arguments, but that's all. There is no way somebody can take a fresh look at the issue and show that one or both sides is mistaken. In addition, religions rely on fundamental beliefs, such as the belief that Jesus was God, was crucified, and died to atone for our sins. Some churches are fine with individuals having problems with those beliefs ("Even if you don't believe in God, God believes in you"), but they aren't going to change those beliefs regardless of any scrutiny.

Further, the beliefs are different. I can accept evolution, and theories thereof, as the best scientific knowledge and almost certainly true. I can do this while knowing that a large body of evidence could theoretically reshape those ideas completely, although I think that exceedingly unlikely. If I join a Christian church, I will be expected to believe certain things about God on shaky evidence, without possibility that those things could be wrong.

TL;DR: Religion expects me to have faith in certain statements as being true. Science expects me to have faith in the long-term effects of a process.

In related news,

[Anonymous Coward]

It was discovered that thinking about Richard Dawkins causes more moral behavior. "Science bless you!" was the official response from his publisher when asked about an opinion about the discovery.

So what they are saying....

[Dcnjoe60]

So what they are saying is that society has so emphasized science that its pursuit has taken on the trappings of an ideology.

I disagree - it's culturally conditioned

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Third Reich, the scientists made massive advances in the sciences, knowing all along that their inventions (especiall in medicine) would be used for immoral purposes. Many of the psychotropic drugs that we still use to treat mental disorders came from research done by the Nazis on living subjects, against their will, and usually to their death. Morality can be linked to science, perhaps, but only because they're correlated to some third cause.

Sciences versus Philosophy

[Dcnjoe60]

The problem today is that scientists can't do anything without acceptance from the moral masses. Want to cure cancer, you can, just don't you dare have a cage full of diseased mice in your lab because that is wrong. Want to cure genetic diseases, you can, just don't you dare try to use stem cells because some people consider that abortion. Want to solve world hunger, you can, just don't you dare splice a tomato gene with an eggplant. Want to prove the world is round, you can, just be respectful of those that believe in 2000 years of lies and intolerance to truth.

I agree there are obvious scientific research that is immoral and unacceptable, but the problem now is that if this study is a truthful indication of the state of scientific research today, then science will fail, and with it, our civilization will collapse.

It is a common theory that the Roman Empire fell is because in essence stupid people out grew the ability for the intellects to solve their problems or improve social conditions. I'm afraid the trend is repeating. FUD is the new God.

There has been a push during the last 50 years to de-emphasize the study of philosophy when pursuing degrees in college and universities. Many have put forth that the lack of basic understanding that comes from studying the great philosophers is what leads to the issues you point out for both scientists and the public. In short, what you are really asking is at what point is too much too much? Where does the line get drawn between moral and immoral? Science cannot answer that question, but philosophy can.

Alas, we don't require philosophy to be studied in most of our degree programs any more, so people make invalid philosophical arguments with potentially devastating results. Even primitive man understood that when throwing a spear a small error in initial trajectory led to a large error at the target. With modern societies lack of sound philosophical underpinnings, the possibility for those small errors is great and the likelihood of large errors or unintended consequences therefore even greater.

It's not FUD being the new god, it's ignorance.

Re:Sciences versus Philosophy

[RespekMyAthorati]

Science cannot answer that question, but philosophy can.

The role of philosophy is to raise interesting questions, and that is important.
However, philosophy is not equipped to answer anything.

Re:Sciences versus Philosophy

[Dcnjoe60]

Science cannot answer that question, but philosophy can.

The role of philosophy is to raise interesting questions, and that is important.
  However, philosophy is not equipped to answer anything.

Philosophy answers questions that deal with why or should (and their derivatives). Science deals with how and what (and their derivatives).

Can we do such and such is a scientific question. Should we do such and such is a philosophical question. If philosophy isn't equipped to answer such questions, then what is?

Totally logical.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am only one person.

Everyone else adds up to 7 billion people.

If society starts thinking only about themselves, then that's 7billion people whose only thoughts are how to fuck me over.

And that's why altruism.

NOTE: Also exists in Bats, Chimps, Lions and many other social group animals.

Altruism works, bitch.

Gaping hole in the study

[SirGarlon]

The first gaping hole I see in the study is that the scientist did not also have a group of participants who fill out questionnaires and do word scrambles and whatnot using non-scientific words and concepts, and see if that also makes a difference in how the groups respond to the date-rape case.

So they've only found evidence for half of their claim. They present no evidence that thinking about science, specifically, affects the subjects' morality more or less than does thinking about anything else.

The more scientific papers I read, or read about, the more I despair that a great many scientists don't understand scientific rigor.

Science is by nature amoral

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing scientific about morality - it is purely subjective.

Science just deals with facts - how one acts upon the knowledge of those facts is either moral or rational.

People mis-reding the summary

[PPH]

It doesn't say science depends on morality or that science is inherently moral, immoral or amoral. It says that when people think 'scientifically' they tend to consider moral issues more often or in greater depth. That may because those understanding the scientific principles are also aware of the lack of inherent 'morality' in them. So they are motivated to think beyond the pure science.

conclusion is weirdly phrased

[Medievalist]

Here's the first 2 lines of the conclusion synopsis: These studies demonstrated the morally normative effects of lay notions of science. Thinking about science leads individuals to endorse more stringent moral norms and exhibit more morally normative behavior.

"lay notions of science" = shit people think might be scientific - for some people this includes homeopathy. For nearly everyone it includes some totally bogus nonsense.

"exhibit more morally normative behavior" = behave more in accordance with mainstream dogmas and shibboleths - in the Southern USA in the 1950s, this would definitely include being OK with brutal beatings of gays and "uppity" black people.

Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Real science is testing your ideas about how they could be wrong.

Reproducibility isn't needed.

When MMe Curie did her experiments on Radium, NOBODY ELSE could use the same radium atoms after they decayed.

Re:Bullshit.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Your understanding of "reproducibility" is flawed.

Um...

[argStyopa]

Is this starting to sound like "Science as religion" to anyone else?

I mean, science as a METHOD is brilliant and irrefutable; hypothesis, test, prove/disprove, repeat.

But there seems to have a been a cascade of quackery articles talking more about "science" as a CREED than science.

And that is a huge mistake. ANYTHING can become dogma. Anything.

Re:Um...

[mjwx]

I mean, science as a METHOD is brilliant and irrefutable; hypothesis, test, prove/disprove, repeat.

People who dont understand this are forced to rely on what other people tell them.

So to them, there is no difference between science and religion (even if they are told there is).

The sad part is, these people end up in a position where they can spread their anti-science nonsense.

Typical psych department pseudo-science

[Anonymous Coward]

So we make grandiose conclusions about human behavior based on the responses of bored or hungry college students to silly questionnaires.I know humanities departments are envious of the methods used by real sciences but give me a break. Madison avenue knows a hell of a lot more about peoples psyches than the profs at UCSB.

Stupid people have no morals

[SpaceLifeForm]

Stupid people only care about themselves. It's "me!, me!, me!" all the way down.

Intelligent people are programmatic bugs, that actually care in spite of the "intelligent creators" design.

The "intelligent creators" only care if you procreate, because you are food, and they will show up some day.

Belief in Open Source

[Guppy]

In epistemically less rigorous contexts, like our everyday lives, testimony is perfectly fine. I am willing to accept that there is water in a bottle I buy from a store simply because it's labelled as being water. What's special about science is that we can crank up the epistemic rigour all the way and (in principle) find out for ourselves whether a claim that is being made is true or false. There are plenty of domains where this is not the case. Religion (which you mentioned) is one, and so are certain social situations (unless you're willing to involve, say, Jerry Springer). In practice we often do end up relying on testimony, but, again, the beauty of science is that I (you (we, as a species)) don't have to.

So, it's kind of like the concept of Free-as-in-Speech in Open Source.

There is far too much code out there for any one of us to examine by themselves. Many of us haven't read through any, yet alone tried compiling any of it. But, even those of us with no programming skill like the idea that it is at least possible for us to do these things, as the limits are set by our own technical skills and available time.

So even though an End User like myself may have no personal understanding of the Source Code I'm using, I still place greater confidence in the trustworthiness of the software I'm using, when I know it is possible for others to do that examination, even if nobody I personally trust has actually has checked that particular piece of code.

Re:Belief in Open Source

[Pav]

It's better than that - one can have more or less trust depending on if the code has 10 users, or if it's audited periodically by hundreds of bad tempered security experts. Likewise with science - a scientific claim vs the strength of scrutiny in light of Occams Razor etc... The trust derives from the strength of the process.

Example Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Vegans and Vegetarians are obviously Immoral and irrational because they sure as heck are unscientific.

Omnivores are scientific so eating meat and vegetables is obviously rational and moral.

I don't know any true Carnivores so I'll have to leave that one alone.

Re:Related perspective: religiosity and intelligen

[mcgrew]

No low IQ people are atheists. :D

So since the link didn't say that, can I assume you're not an atheist? Because that was, if you'll pardon me, a really stupid thing to say. I know for a personally observed fact that that statement was incorrect. There's a fellow I drink with who's an atheist. He is completely illiterate and spent ten years in prison for murder when he was young, neither of which are indicators of superior intelligence. He's in his early seventies, has never paid into Social Security and has no pension and works construction for little more than minimum wage. Now tell me that guy has a high IQ.

What your link said was that there's a correlation between atheism and analytical minds, which makes perfect sense.

Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

The key point that is mentioned here is the bit about "deep-seated perception of science as a moral pursuit." It's been known for a long time that people behave more morally when given reminders about moral beliefs. The average person doesn't actually understand what science is or how it works; rather, she regards it as some thing which she ought to believe in and respect, an attitude that she acquired socially. This is almost exactly how religion functions, and if you regard this as a tragedy that flies in the face of everything science stands for, welcome to what happened to religion. The religion of today was the intellectual, scholarly, and scientific pursuits of generations of old, watered down for the masses and then petrified into a code of unchangeable ideas that everyone must memorize. What most people consider to be religion today is laughable, and likewise much of what's now being passed for science nowadays is also a joke. Those people who against vaccines? They claim science is backing their claims. That's basically like saying God is on your side.

Re:Related perspective: religiosity and intelligen

[Anonymous Coward]

yes and no. Religion offers some mental calisthenics beyond eating grass and watching paint dry. The trick with religion isn't a lack of food for thought, the problem rests with dogma, delusion and worst of all persecution.

Re:Related perspective: religiosity and intelligen

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Belief in supernatural powers is a natural component of our cognition. It takes considerable effort to not believe in magic, requiring intelligence and fortitude to fill in the gaps created in our image of the world, and to prevent oneself from pursuing flights of fancy.

Many self-avowed atheists and agnostics believe in the supernatural or in magic; their expression of atheism is merely a rejection of the dominate, contemporary religious concepts. For example, many geeks harbor beliefs in aliens or superluminal travel. They would argue that those beliefs are anchored in science, but science and religion have always been deeply intertwined.

Could be just thinking vs not-thinking...

[Kazoo the Clown]

"There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything; both ways save us from thinking." -- Alfred Korzybsky's variation of Henri Poincare. Those who will believe anything, will believe the justifications for evil, and those who doubt everything, will doubt the justifications for good, generally to suit themselves.

Re:Related perspective: religiosity and intelligen

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an IQ of 148 (I forget which test, but I was tested by two psychologists two separate times at the age of 11). The higher the IQ, the more likely people are to be just plain weird. Your image of intelligence merely reflects those in the 100-130 range who grew up in a stable family.

As a child I could always tell who the smart grownups were. They would ask questions which other people would think odd or non-sensical, but which had deep substance. One man I remember (I grew up very poor and my mom had a lot of "guy friends") was a retired chemical engineer; extremely bright and more than a little eccentric. He basically chose to become an itinerant alcoholic; he said to himself something like, "I like drinking... I like traveling... so fsck it!"

Half of the kids in my gifted program (all IQs over 138) never finished university. What truly distinguished us (~10 students) from the rest of the school (1000+ students), aside from our IQ, was our extreme variability--from where we came form, and to where we migrated in society.

Your markers for IQ have more to do with class and economic well being. An alcoholic murderer? That tells me absolutely nothing about the guy's IQ. Extremely high IQ people can smell their own, and we're definitely a weird bunch. Being weird doesn't make you smart, but being smart doesn't make you not weird--or not violent, or not self-destructive. Being smart simply makes you more aware of your pathologies; it doesn't make you a better person.

Cut to the chase

[Anonymous Coward]

Thinking requires atheism.

What did Aldous Huxley say about "life not having meaning" in Ends and Means?

Re:Related perspective: religiosity and intelligen

[Antiocheian]

Of course most low IQ people are believers. Most religions protect them from being aborted in the first place.

Gaping hole in your reading comprehension skills

[Fned]

Paragraph 5:

"Participants first completed a word scramble task during which they either had to unscramble some of these science-related words or words that had nothing to do with science."

Dupe

[Anonymous Coward]

Dupe: Does Scientific Literacy Make People More Ethical?

Bollocks

[kzadot]

Science is explicitly NOT a moral pursuit. Science is objective, morality is subjective. There would be no need for morality if things could be scientifically proven good or bad in the way that things can be proven true or false, or arguments valid or invalid.

Science does seek truth, morality does not. The best it can seek is consensus.Science is indeed impartial, morality is about picking a side. "Collective well being" may be one end goal of scientific thinking, but never at the expense of truth, and as soon as one engages in science specifically for such a goal one is no longer impartial.

Also date-rate is a poor topic for such an experiment as it is easy for most people to conclude that it is wrong based on universally shared principles (note: nothing to do with science). In fact it sounds like the researchers didn't even think twice about forming such a moral position in advance and merely compared to which degree the participants chose a moral position that agreed with theirs. Far better would be the trickier issues like political positions, abortion, polygamy, homosexuality, vegetarianism etc.

Even if the experiment was sound, the interpretation is ridiculous. The observed correlation could still be interesting, but we would need to conduct more, better, experiments and interpret the results better.

My hypothesis would be : Assuming science enthusiasts go on less dates as young singles than the general population they have less exposure to situations where tricky situations arrive, i.e. getting drunk and having sex. Many of the less-scientifically minded have probably had situations where a mistake was made, or judgement was poorly executed, and are less likely to make blanket judgements condemning certain behaviours outright. A science enthusiast that hasn't been in that situation is likely to consider himself, should he find himself in that situation, as being capable of exemplary behaviour, he may not consider himself as likely to make mistakes, have less tolerance for mistake making in general, and more prepared to take a harder moral position against the very human behaviour of making mistakes.

And what the hell is "belief in science"?

I have seen more intellectual rigour on /r/Atheism

Low IQ people will always follow the mainstream.

[tempmpi]

It is simply easier for a person to just believe the same things as most of his neighbors, family and friends. No arguing needed, no or only little amounts of justification for own world view are needed. If a person, however, has a world view that does not match the world view of most people around him, this person will always have to justify this world view to them. This needs more intelligence than just going with the mainstream. Low IQ people will therefor always go with the mainstream as this is the only thing that is possible for them.

As all these studies that compare individuals intelligence vs. atheism have been done in states such as the US where the mainstream is theism, they show no low IQ people who are atheists. These studies should be repeated in states where the mainstream is atheistic and anti-religious, e.g.: China or eastern Germany. They might show exactly the opposite trend: No low IQ people are religious.

Re:Related perspective: religiosity and intelligen

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm.. you don't "accept atheism" there is nothing to accept. If children would be raised up in a totally non-religious community they wouldn't suddenly start questioning the absense of religion. The same way as you don't constantly question the absense of grimmalatabalation. You have no idea such idea or thing even exists, and as a mater of fact for the said children religion doesn't. Most people around here are pretty close to religion free already. What religion mean to them is something other people do, and a collection of fairytales. They may even belong to some church, but only because they were joined to it as a kid, and haven't thought about it since. You could argue they are even more atheists than the self proclaimed ones that try to "convert" everyone to atheism. They simply don't give a crap about gods or religion or the existance of it. If you ask them about it it would be the same as me asking you about your relationship with grimmalatabalation. With the difference that thay have heard about god and religion, and those words aren't made up by some anonymous coward on slashdot, but by some cowards that lived many thousands of years ago.

Better Freakin' Hope So

[fygment]

Now that we are poised to be able to control another human body through a mind-link (http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/08/27/1827256/uw-researchers-demonstrate-first-direct-communication-between-human-brains), you better hope the controller has morals.

another atheist wet dream...

[Anonymous Coward]

trying so hard to fight that invisible man in the sky that doesn't exist, but they can't simply ignore him... Does that make atheists crazy?

Why is science "moral?"

[tripwire45]

Science is just the study of observable phenomena using a using a specific set of techniques. As such, it is amoral. Human beings introduce any sort of moral structure (or lack thereof) into the interpretation of the results of such observations.

She blinded me ...with science!

[Anonymous Coward]

Science must be the one true religion for these modern times.