Judge Halts Human-Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cain

My apologies.

I would ask why you think that everyone needs to make a judgment call on the ethics of scientific study? You expressed discontent about the fact that only those in the cutting edge of research are those that are able to make ethical judgments, which implies that you think that it should be a broader field able to make those judgments...am I correct in this?

If so, I would agree with you. I do think that moral/ethical decisions should be made by as large a group as possible. It is easier to monitor things that have a large group of eyes focused on them, and easier to make sure that they do not stray down the wrong paths. This however, is also a pipe dream. We do not always have an educated audience as large as we would like, and honestly, probably could not support such a large one. There are many avenues of science to be explored in this world, and many require quite a bit of specialization which rules out the majority of people ever being involved.

I guess that I agree with you to a point (if I understand you correctly anyway). However, in my mind this ideal is unattainable, so yes, I do place my trust in the various experts found across various domains because the alternative is abhorrent in my mind (the average person directing our research aims and areas). I would trust a small community that is well versed in their area to be ethical and moral in their work over a huge community that for the most part is clueless about what is even taking place to make those judgments.

I think this is the response that I agree with somewhat, except when it comes to policies or decisions that will have a substantial impact upon the way in which most people choose to live their lives.

I also worry about scapegoating our burdens off on classes of people who are politically insignificant. I would even go so far as to say "like the unborn."

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

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.

Do you mean post #140? Please re-post and clarify.

Originally Posted by peter12

The parlay and discussion of ethics in science is almost exclusively now the domain of scientists. Look at your post, you used industry and field specific language with no indication of what the ethics might be to an average person or a specialist in a different field. It's just indicated that we should trust the experts instead of appealing to the empiricism of the greater polity.

Am I correct in understanding that you are challenging the value that we as a society has attached to expert opinions? Do you feel that a better approach would be to treat all opinions on any given subject or idea as entirely equal, regardless of ones expertise?

Originally Posted by peter12

...instead of accepting that these questions are only for the domain of scientific ethics, we either need to broaden the definition of science ethics to include contribution from the humanities (mainly philosophy and literature) or we need to start educating people on scientific issues so they are better able to answer these questions for themselves without relying on elite opinion...

I expect that the latter would meet would the most positive approval, but I really question how much the first statement holds true. Obviously, because there is even an ongoing debate about the ethical or moral consequences in stem-cell research demonstrates fairly clearly that the polity is NOT willing to leave the matter up to the "scientific elite".

[peter12]

Am I correct in understanding that you are challenging the value that we as a society has attached to expert opinions? Do you feel that a better approach would be to treat all opinions on any given subject or idea as entirely equal, regardless of ones expertise?

There is nothing wrong with expert opinions as long as they are given the proper time and place to be responded to. We don't really do that anymore in a meaningful way, so it leaves the door open to fringe conspiracy thinking which then goes on to further pollute the public sphere. At least that's my opinion. I certainly do not believe that all opinions are relative, nor do I believe that truth is held by whomever calls themselves an expert. Often experts, especially scientists, hold what they think to be a particular type of truth without acknowledging the moral or political framework.

Richard Dawkins is a perfect example. He thinks that evolutionary biology justifies a host of beliefs without recognizing the overall historical context. Namely, that he is a pretty standard, wish-washy, secular liberal. You can read Francis Bacon and create a parody of Richard Dawkins, 400 years before he existed. Does that make sense? We use so-called rationalism and materialism to defend particular points and given the current cultural milieu this makes them all but impregnable to true philosophical skepticism which is the true spring of eternal cultural health.

I expect that the latter would meet would the most positive approval, but I really question how much the first statement holds true. Obviously, because there is even an ongoing debate about the ethical or moral consequences in stem-cell research demonstrates fairly clearly that the polity is NOT willing to leave the matter up to the "scientific elite".

Well, I would challenge the very existence of a polity in these times so I am not sure that the resistance of people amounts to anything significant.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

I'm the OP. Is the title that big of a deal?

Stem cell research is a pretty hot topic regardless of the title. Not exactly sure if your an opponent of stem cell research or just a stickler for accurate titles.


But I digress, I agree the title should have been longer. And the brevity of factual information could appear, to one as astute as yourself, as being sensational.

But sensationalism was not my original goal.

Believe it or not, but I was only trying to keep the title brief and originally wrote "Stem Cell Research" but then upon further thought added "Human-Embryonic" as I felt my original title was misleading and I didn't want to mislead anyone.

The title still didn't sound right to me, but I posted it anyways as I thought it would be an intriguing topic ripe for discussion. Why? I don't know, but my lawyer is looking into the medication that I'm currently taking.

Upon further reflection, I realize that I should have mentioned Gov't Funded. As I feel those two words would have prevented folks, much like yourself, from clicking on the tread and not only having to read the article but take the time to leave such a pithy complaint.

Not much for me to do, but apologize and if please let me know what you want as a title and I'll change it. I think that there is no need to discuss the fact that vulgar titles will be deemed unsuitable.

For best results, post it here and PM me with it as well.

I apologize for implying that you were sensationalizing with purpose. I shouldn't have done that.

I feel very strongly that when discussing hot button issues every effort should be made to be as accurate as possible to avoid ambiguity. The reasons for this belief, and it has manifested itself dozens of times in the very forum, are the following:

1. The thread title is the reason why every single person who visits this thread initially visits.

2. Most of those people will NOT click on the link and read the article and are left believing something that is not at all true. Certainly, that's not on you, but it could be avoided.

I don't need to suggest a better thread title, you've already mentioned what it should've been.

[Textcritic]

You will need to bear with me. There was ALOT in post #139 that I would like to engage, but I really want to be sure that I understand your position, so I expect that I will continue coming back to this.

Originally Posted by peter12

...I am uncomfortable with stem cell research, IVF and other reproductive technologies because they represent a separation of the public realm and the private realm.

Originally Posted by peter12

...When I say private I am talking about the subjective Kantian private. That is, our thoughts. The private life where our worlds are entirely unique. The public sphere is the place where these thoughts may be expressed and judged by a set of peers. This is where meaning takes place and perhaps, where objective reality is created. Philosophically, we would call this politics...

If I were to extrapolate your definition into the statement above, you have said that you are against reproductive technologies because they represent a separation of individual thought from dialogue and discussion...

Further in your response, you go on to say this:

Originally Posted by peter12

...My ultimate issue with IVF and stem cell research is not the potential fruits that could be reaped but rather that our concept of the good life now lies on the magic and unfulfilled fruits of an unpredictable science rather than in the fellowship and discussion with our fellow human beings...

This is slightly more clear, and if I am to understand you correctly, you are not so skeptical of "science" as you are of the notion of "progress". It seems to me that you have assigned the fruits of science entirely to the idea that the whole point is a better end, and that this all takes precedence over what really matters, which is community and culture. If I am reading you correctly, then I have to say that you have a long way to go towards convincing me that your vilification of "progress" is anything more than reactionary, ant-modernist propaganda.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

...We use so-called rationalism and materialism to defend particular points and given the current cultural milieu this makes them all but impregnable to true philosophical skepticism which is the true spring of eternal cultural health...

I can agree with this, but in so doing it seems to me that for any forms of skepticism to be intelligible they must be presented within the same sphere that has helped to create this facade of rationalism and materialism. In my own field I attempt to answer questions pertaining to the historical nature of religion and the development of "faith" (I am using this term as an expression of the broad range of religious thought and practice). All the while, my concern is to answer these questions in accordance with the methods of my discipline; methods that have been rationally conditioned but also adopted because they work. I would imagine the same holds true for science, and for philosophy: We are beholden to our methodologies because they produce desired results. In the end, we project what those results will be based on our acceptance/rejection of them.

In the present climate, I fail to see how "science" or "technology" continue to develop apart from some sort of concept of "progress"; and yet you seem to be suggesting that we ought to, for fear that progress will become an end to itself. I guess what I don't understand is how you imagine that science would continue in the absence of this goal? You may claim that the goal should be different (and perhaps it should), but this again will still serve some concept of advancement; by which we presume that we will somehow be better off for it—however one chooses to define that.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I apologize for implying that you were sensationalizing with purpose. I shouldn't have done that.

I feel very strongly that when discussing hot button issues every effort should be made to be as accurate as possible to avoid ambiguity. The reasons for this belief, and it has manifested itself dozens of times in the very forum, are the following:

1. The thread title is the reason why every single person who visits this thread initially visits.

2. Most of those people will NOT click on the link and read the article and are left believing something that is not at all true. Certainly, that's not on you, but it could be avoided.

I don't need to suggest a better thread title, you've already mentioned what it should've been.

Apology accepted, and sorry if my response to you came across as harsh.

If people get their information from titles on posted on CP we're all in a heap of trouble and I'm now fighting a very strong urge to post some really insane titles.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by peter12

Richard Dawkins is a perfect example. He thinks that evolutionary biology justifies a host of beliefs without recognizing the overall historical context. Namely, that he is a pretty standard, wish-washy, secular liberal. You can read Francis Bacon and create a parody of Richard Dawkins, 400 years before he existed. Does that make sense? We use so-called rationalism and materialism to defend particular points and given the current cultural milieu this makes them all but impregnable to true philosophical skepticism which is the true spring of eternal cultural health.

I've noticed you have knocked on Richard Dawkins a couple times before. I am just curious, what books of his have you read? God Delusion?