Good article. Some of these concerns also apply to relatively “mundane” research, such as particle physics experiments. These experiments require huge amounts of resources that could be put to better use, they involve existential risks (such as creation of black holes or “strange matter”) and they’re often advocated out of a misguided sense that particle physics is inordinately important due to it being a “foundation ontology” for physical reality. This, even though drawing conclusions out of particle physics experiments is a highly non-trivial endeavour which is fraught with cognitive biases (witness the bogus “neutrinos are FTL” claim from a while ago) and arguably tells us very little about what determines the “high level” physical outcomes we actually care about.
You could also add some references to what religious and ethical leaders have said on the issue. The Roman Catholic pope John Paul II grappled with this issue in his encyclical letter Faith and reason, where he stated:
33 … It is the nature of the human being to seek the truth. This search looks not only to the attainment of truths which are partial, empirical or scientific; nor is it only in individual acts of decision-making that people seek the true good. … It must not be forgotten that reason too needs to be sustained in all its searching by trusting dialogue and sincere friendship. A climate of suspicion and distrust, which can beset speculative research, ignores the teaching of the ancient philosophers who proposed friendship as one of the most appropriate contexts for sound philosophical enquiry.
56 … I cannot but encourage philosophers—be they Christian or not—to trust in the power of human reason and not to set themselves goals that are too modest in their philosophizing. The lesson of history in this millennium now drawing to a close shows that this is the path to follow: it is necessary not to abandon the passion for ultimate truth, the eagerness to search for it or the audacity to forge new paths in the search.
The Dalai Lama also made comparable statements, drawing on the Buddhist doctrine of dhamma vicaya, which posits self-knowledge (called ātman in this context) as the proper foundation of any scientific inquiry.
Edit: Why the downvotes? You don’t have to like it, but the Roman Catholic Pope and the Dalai Lama are seen as ethical leaders and role models by many people. So what they say is quite important.
I didn’t downvote, but people might have done so since the focus of the article was on ethically concerned scientists, and the Pope and Dalai Lama aren’t scientists.
If I were to downvote, it would be because of the unfair/inaccurate description of particle physics (existential threats, not that important, arbitrary conclusions)
Good article. Some of these concerns also apply to relatively “mundane” research, such as particle physics experiments. These experiments require huge amounts of resources that could be put to better use, they involve existential risks (such as creation of black holes or “strange matter”) and they’re often advocated out of a misguided sense that particle physics is inordinately important due to it being a “foundation ontology” for physical reality. This, even though drawing conclusions out of particle physics experiments is a highly non-trivial endeavour which is fraught with cognitive biases (witness the bogus “neutrinos are FTL” claim from a while ago) and arguably tells us very little about what determines the “high level” physical outcomes we actually care about.
You could also add some references to what religious and ethical leaders have said on the issue. The Roman Catholic pope John Paul II grappled with this issue in his encyclical letter Faith and reason, where he stated:
The Dalai Lama also made comparable statements, drawing on the Buddhist doctrine of dhamma vicaya, which posits self-knowledge (called ātman in this context) as the proper foundation of any scientific inquiry.
Edit: Why the downvotes? You don’t have to like it, but the Roman Catholic Pope and the Dalai Lama are seen as ethical leaders and role models by many people. So what they say is quite important.
I didn’t downvote, but people might have done so since the focus of the article was on ethically concerned scientists, and the Pope and Dalai Lama aren’t scientists.
Downvoted for characterizing the FTL neutrinos results as a ‘bogus claim’ rather than as a series of anomalous results.
If I were to downvote, it would be because of the unfair/inaccurate description of particle physics (existential threats, not that important, arbitrary conclusions)