Technology != science

[cellocgw]

Continuing the discussion from The alternative to anti-science is not blind pro-science:

The problem, I think, is that the author and many of the commenters here are confusing the conclusions scientific research reaches with the effect these conclusions may have in a society that’s full of structures (gov’t, business, etc.) with a high level of self-interest. Science is science, and truth is truth. See Feynmann’s comments about “nature will not be fooled.” What people do with the truth is a whole 'nother matter. They ignore it, lie about it, treat it grossly out of context for their own profit, and so on. It’s absurd to say that commerce or politics affects the reality of valid science. And “technology” is the result of how we choose to apply science. It isn’t science itself.

@chenille

Sort of, but I think that might miss the point. The value of a technology depends on how it is employed, and there are lots that are science suggests are safe when applied carefully and dangerous when not. In which case, their value depends on how well we trust people to take proper precautions, and so economic, social, and legal factors come into play.

For instance, I don’t think it makes sense to ask whether something like GM is safe or not in general; science shows that it can be, but it’s easy to see that it doesn’t have to be. So the real question is what level of investigation and regulation goes with using it safely. That’s something you can and should approach scientifically, but it involves looking at a lot of social context in addition to the technology itself.

[codinghorror]

I always thought morality and ethics were the complement to a purely data-driven science approach.

It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter.