 | Forum Threads |  |
| Random Photo | |
| Member Poll | |
|
| Comments |
on October 29 2010 18:40:09
Very interesting.
But the last sentence..:
She concluded: “Yet again extensive ancient Egyptian data, along with other data from across the millennia, has given modern society a clear message – cancer is man-made and something that we can and should address.”
So, if it wasn't man-made we couldn't or shouldn't address it?
The problem remains whether caused by man, by nature or by an invisible unicorn. Just because we haven't caused something, doesn't mean we are unable to do something about it, nor that we shouldn't touch it because we're afraid of "meddling with nature".
Anyways, I hope this new knowledge can help scientists find a cure for cancer. |
on November 04 2010 10:34:02
So, if it wasn't man-made we couldn't or shouldn't address it?
That's not really what she says or implies. To paraphrase for clarity; she's saying that cancer is man-made, which means that it must be possible for us to do something about it, and that it is even our ethical duty.
She's not saying anything about our abilities or duties regarding diseases not caused by man, neither positive nor negative. I'm sure she thinks that if we can address diseases not made by man, we also should.
She was just concluding that as it is made by man there is no uncertainty whether it can or should be addressed. |
on November 04 2010 10:36:51
Btw, I think you got the wrong thing out of this research:
Anyways, I hope this new knowledge can help scientists find a cure for cancer.
If your leg hurts from continually stabbing it with a pen, the smart thing would be to stop stabbing yourself rather than hoping for a cure for pen stab wounds to the leg... |
on November 04 2010 16:08:09
That's not really what she says or implies. To paraphrase for clarity; she's saying that cancer is man-made, which means that it must be possible for us to do something about it, and that it is even our ethical duty.
This is still a wholly superfluous and incorrect statement. The fact that cancer is man-made does NOT mean that it must be possible for us to do something about it. We are not, for example, able to bring back all the species we have driven to extinction. There are many problems not caused by man that we can do something about, and there are many man-made problems we can do nothing about. Whether something is man-made or not makes absolutely no difference one way or the other.
Then there is the "should" part. Dawkins says that priests are self-proclaimed morality experts that are no better at judging right from wrong than the rest of us. When scientists make moral statements in conjunction with the release of scientific information they might trick the reader into thinking that scientists are indeed morality experts in addition to being scientists. This devalues science as a whole. If you're representing science you should refrain from making any moral statements and stick to the science.
If your leg hurts from continually stabbing it with a pen, the smart thing would be to stop stabbing yourself rather than hoping for a cure for pen stab wounds to the leg...
You think if I get cancer and haven't lived healthily, it is my own fault. That might be partly true. But you still have a moral obligation to try and help me regardless of whose fault it is. Some religious nuts once said that AIDS was god's way of punishing homosexuals. Are you saying that cancer is nature's way of punishing people with an unhealthy lifestyle? and if you are does that mean you are free of any responsibility to help these people?
Assigning blame for cancer is a misguided as it was assigning blame for the black plague and burning witches, or for the Mayans to make bloody sacrifices in hopes of a better harvest. Cancer, like all other problems should be approached logically. blaming is completely useless. |
on November 05 2010 10:55:00
... Whether something is man-made or not makes absolutely no difference one way or the other.
Yes it does. Your extinction analogy is not analogous to the cancer problem. Extinct animals may be lost in time, while when it comes to cancer we are continually causing/producing the cause of cancer. If we are actively doing something to cause it, we can also actively stop doing it. In any case, the statement as intended is quite true, and it's just sophism to debate semantics and whether or not her statement is universally true.
Your next section seems to say that morality and science are non-overlapping magisteria. Is this really what you believe? That scientists should stick to science, and leave the moral issues to priests? Really?!
I think scientists should be allowed to voice their opinion just like anyone else. I don't think voicing an ethical opinion constitutes proclaiming oneself a "morality expert" and is most certainly not analogous to religious figureheads proclaiming they have an exclusive, god-given authority on all moral issues. I also don't think that science has nothing to say on moral issues. Our sense of ethics and morality has arisen as a result of evolution, hence I think science has quite a lot to tell us on this issue. In fact, Sam Harris, who you will remember is a scientist, has just written a book on this: The Moral Landscape, How Science Can Determine Human Values. But the point is moo; as I started this paragraph, the scientist is allowed to have her opinion and voice it.
You think if I get cancer and haven't lived healthily, it is my own fault.
Yes and no. Your statement is true per se (given that you are aware that your lifestyle is unhealthy), but that's not what I was trying to say with my analogy. The point I was trying to make is that prevention is better than treatment. It is better to try to remove or minimize the causes of cancer rather than just treat the disease after it has arisen. You do agree with me on this, right? But also, my analogy was on humanity, not you as an individual. We as a species produce and expose each other to a lot of toxic chemicals, and abuse otherwise non-toxic chemicals in an unhealthy manner, and it is better to avoid or minimize these exposures rather than just "hoping for a cure". Yes, this entails healthier living, but certainly not just that. It also entails being more aware of which chemicals we use, how we use them, why we get exposed to them, who gets exposed to them, etc. This is not just individuals' responsibility, this is the responsibility of mankind as a whole (granted that we have moral obligations towards each other as you yourself stated).
Are you saying that cancer is nature's way of punishing people with an unhealthy lifestyle?
Well, I don't like to anthropomorphize Nature, but yes, I am saying that the symptoms of an unhealthy lifestyle, such as certain cancers, are the products of living unhealthily, that's kind of the definition of "unhealthy".
Assigning blame for cancer is a misguided
This is not a witch hunt, and we're not talking about blame, we're talking about cause and prevention. |
on November 05 2010 16:19:24
Yes it does.
No it doesn't 
This is not semantics. What makes you so sure, that the human race can stop doing something it is already doing? How about war? world hunger?, slavery? pollution? or even using the internet?
That scientists should stick to science, and leave the moral issues to priests? Really?!
yeah, that's really what I believe. Except for the priests part. I believe that a science and morality should be separated as much as possible. Of course, it is impossible to separate the two completely, but we must try nonetheless. Who should deal with morality is hard for me to say. If there are any experts I suppose it would be moral philosophers. Like everybody else, scientists are allowed to voice their opinion. As long as it is clear when they are voicing a layman non-expert opinion and when they are presenting a scientific result, I have no problem with it.
I haven't read that book, but if it is the same idea Sam Harris floated at TED, then I do not believe in it.
This is not a witch hunt, and we're not talking about blame, we're talking about cause and prevention.
That certain chemicals cause cancer is nothing new, and we have been trying to find and minimize such chemicals for more than 50 years - without much success apparently. This is probably because our modern lifestyle relies on the use of such chemicals. We will, of course, continue to look for ways to phase out unhealthy chemicals as we discover them, but it is by no means certain that we will ever be able to prevent cancer-causing agents completely without going back in time and begin living like we did before the industrial revolution. The industrial evolution has changed the world profoundly, and I am certain that it is impossible for mankind to go back to pre-industrialized living without some sort of cataclysmic event. Hence, I think it would be a lot more realistic to wait for a cure, rather than for our whole society to change.
This is not a witch hunt, and we're not talking about blame, we're talking about cause and prevention.
You are right. But what if prevention fails (as it has so far) - either because people cannot change the way they live or because they refuse to? then there is blame, right? |
on November 06 2010 02:09:18
This discovery does mean one thing though; It makes cancer slightly less mysterious, and therefore more likely to cure. Before this, it could not be ruled out that cancer was a natural part of our biology. Were that true, finding a cure for cancer would be as difficult as finding a cure for aging, or some other facet of human existence. Now at least we know that it is an unnatural state that was very rare until quite recently, which should make it easier to approach as a problem. |
on November 06 2010 17:07:23
... Whether something is man-made or not makes absolutely no difference one way or the other.
Yes it does.
No it doesn't
This is not semantics. What makes you so sure, that the human race can stop doing something it is already doing? How about war? world hunger?, slavery? pollution? or even using the internet?
Yes it most certainly fucking does!!
What's with the defeatist, deterministic attitude? Yes, we can!
War and slavery have already been stopped in the parts of the world that matter, world hunger is more a problem of our apathy than anything else, pollution, well the ozone layer is back, which pretty much proves my point, and the internet, well, I don't see why we would want to stop that, but of course we could stop using it. In fact, we do it whenever the power goes out, and no one has spontaneously burst into flames because of that.
yeah, that's really what I believe.
....
If there are any experts I suppose it would be moral philosophers
I don't think you get it. Anything any moral philosopher has to say about anything has to be firmly rooted in science. Any moral idea or affirmation has to be rooted in science. Is it wrong to do X to Y? Well, it certainly depends a whole lot on reality. What is X? Who is Y? What is the evolutionary baggage of Y? What is the physical layout and neural make up of Y? How does Y respond to X?
Science has the only explanation for any of this. What is left for the moral philosophers to debate? "Is suffering bad"? Of course it is! That's the definition of the word! Debate over!
I'm sure there are complicated scenarios that need discussion and debate, but that is mostly because there are uncertainties that science has yet to provide.
blabla bla then I do not believe in it.
Of course you don't! You don't believe in anything (except "No, we can't" )!
Hence, I think it would be a lot more realistic to wait for a cure, rather than for our whole society to change.
You don't have to wait for anyone else to change, you can be the change yourself! At least towards yourself. Healthy living is still what will have the most influence on your chance of getting cancer. And if I were a betting man, my money would be on proactive healthy living, rather than crossing fingers.
This discovery does mean one thing though; It makes cancer slightly less mysterious, and therefore more likely to cure.
Cross your fingers and hope those moral philosophers find a cure! |
on November 06 2010 18:00:38
|
on November 07 2010 13:51:32
This discussion is getting out of hand. Let me just restate my position, since it is becoming hard to see how this started:
"She concluded: “Yet again extensive ancient Egyptian data, along with other data from across the millennia, has given modern society a clear message – cancer is man-made and something that we can and should address.”
My problem with this statement is that it suggests that because cancer is man-made it can and should be addressed. This is simply not true, because we can address and should address all problems, whether man-made or not. How much we can and should do about them is also not dependent on the cause of the problem, but on the problem itself and the effect it has on us.
This statement does not belong in a scientific article or in a press release about scientific results, because I think science and morality should be separated as much as possible. I think that because one relies on logic and the other does not.
Yes it most certainly fucking does!!, What's with the defeatist, deterministic attitude? blabla bla, You don't believe in anything (except "No, we can't" )! Cross your fingers and hope those moral philosophers find a cure!
Since we're now doing ad hominem let me sum up:
You see me as a defeatist deterministic apathetic pessimist who doesn't believe that anything is possible.
I see you as an overzealous and sometimes fanatic idealist whose ego overshadows his ability to see others in anything but his own self image.
These discussions always seem to end at the same familiar place. Until next time. |
|
|
| Post Comment | |
Please Login to Post a Comment.
|
|
|
| Login | |
Forgotten your password? Request a new one here.
|
| | 
| Last Seen Users | |
| Obituaries | |
You must login to post a message.
|
| |
|
Interest
