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..

[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...

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: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: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.