Slashdot Mirror
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."
that these researchers falsified this study to detract attention from all their previously falsified studies.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
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.
Usually when I think of science I think of blowing stuff up...
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.
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.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Where the crap did you dig up that definition of "moral?"
The pursuit about understanding can only go one way.
Science is about truth.
Faith can be about anything. Its make believe after all.
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.
scientists have above average morals.
In other news, 90% of all people say they are above average drivers.
To a certain degree it is. Your genes will not survive in the long run if your species does not.
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.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
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?).
And this confirms you can not really spell Nazi.
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.
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
There is a correlation between atheism and intelligence. But there are still plenty of idiotic atheists out there.
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/
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.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
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.)
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.
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.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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?
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
I'm always skeptical of these types of studies. I mean who are they surveying that says date rape is okay?
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
Otherwise known as "enlightened self-interest".
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
You are in need of some serious help.
Seldom have I seen someone go to such lengths to justify their own psychopathy.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Except that altruism is not logical.
Altruism by an individual is not logical.
Altruism within a group is an extremely successful survival strategy.
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.
"With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue will break a bone."