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..

[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..

[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..

[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..

[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.

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.

Blowing stuff up

[Drethon]

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

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: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?

[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: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?

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: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.