Quote:
Originally Posted by Cain
I love to play the victim too, but I know that this debate isn't going anywhere. Nobody will convince you, and you will convince nobody.
I "attacked" you by asking if your beliefs regarding the lack of ethics in the world of science were based on arrogance. A fair question in my eyes as you are not a part of that world, nor have the technical expertise to always fully understand the work that they are undertaking and therefore if you make moral judgments, they are judgments that are colored by a lesser understanding.
I also said you were being high and mighty. Again, not a personal attack. I am not calling you a name, I am stating how you come off. If you want to deflect by focusing on these, that is fine.
Do you care to explain your reasonable doubts about the long term validity of some scientific research as currently viewed in our culture, because I don't understand what you are talking about. It is such a vague ambiguous statement.
|
I'm not playing the victim at all, I am expressing frustration at how poorly you responded to my post.
My skepticism in science (why is it that we can be skeptical about everything but science) is introduced by post #139 and by the post above.
I would say that I have a fairly good background in the moral sciences, see philosophy and literature. I feel that just because we call something "ethical" doesn't necessarily mean that it is necessarily so.