Should unethically obtained data be used to progress science?

Should unethically obtained data be used to progress science?

Other urls found in this thread:

thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/abstract
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Yes.

The right answer

It's still unethically obtained if you do not use it

There is a misconception that science must be ethical. Mostly its the opposite.

Peoples understanding of morality changes over time. In middle ages bible was the morality. Bow sjws and feminists are considered moral.

But science is never moral, in middle ages it was against bible and now its against leftist assholes.

One example is great scientist james d watson. He said that he was concerned the future of africa because all our social policies are based on the fact that they are as intelligent as us, although all the tests says otherwise.

Which is perfectly true and scientific. Intelligence is not less genetic than skin color and play a huge role in development of society.

Now my point is that science doesnt give a shit about current trend of morality, it would change as often otherwise.

Its all about facts and knowledge and experiments, thus, who gives a fuck about where and how did you get the facts.

Scientist individualy can be moral, but science just dont and shouldn't care.

Not if that leads to continuing of unethical digging of data. So don't go to work at a concentration camp.

But after ww2 the camps were bulldozed down anyway, might as well use the data.

You would have to know if some knowledge can ONLY be obtained in unethical ways.

So for example if the only way to find the cure for cancer is to kill some humans, it is hardly justifieable not to do so. Even if that number you have to kill is in the tens of thousands.

However, if you can also find the cure in other ways, even if they take longer, it would be unethical to go down the path that kills humans.

>unethically
no such thing because there is no unambiguous definition of it . saying something is or isnt ethical isnt even wrong.

/thread

all data concerning humans cannot be obtained 'ethically' since by only gathering data from people who are aware of or agree to it you're biasing it which makes all your data completely useless .

LHC dosnt fucking ask the hadrons if they wanna go in the beam

no. It is cursed. Like Hitler and his ideas he got from torturing people to death.

Legally, no, because that would encourage people illegally obtaining data.

don't be thick.

but there is literally no algorithm to find out if a piece of data was obtained 'ethically' ,so if we only use only 'ethically obtained' data we'll be basically abolishing science and never doing it again.
like you wouldnt be able to use newtonian mechanics because you wouldnt be able to prove it because theres no ethically obtained data on newtonian mechanics , there no observation or measurement of mechanics that you can prove is 'ethical data'.
you're throwing all of physics,chemistry,biology and anything empirical ever away .

empiricism cannot exist with ambiguous constraints that bias your data in unquantifiable ways.

IM PICKLE RICK ! ! !

welcome to the real world kiddo. things are fuzzy.

which is why you shouldn't use those things

Ethics doesn't exist in order to hold back science or what ever the virginal autists on sci believe it does - it's to ensure that the data is actually real and not the product of terrible experiment design, plagiarism, fraud or wishful thinking.

thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/abstract

good luck in a world without laws

>it's to ensure that the data is actually real and not the product of terrible experiment design

it's more about just not being a dick. unethically obtained data is not necessarily bad data

see unit 731

No.

If the data is right and improves our understanding of a particular field, yes, absolutely

Are you autistic?

There is nothing ethical in data
Data are data
And there is nothing unethical in using data
Indipendently of how obtained
we don't put in the trash data like of hiroshima ,cuz hiroshima and nagasaki was a bad thinghs,
That doesn't make any sense

no

*yes

Science is a metod it has to do with ethic like the tecnich the barber use to cut your hair ,namely none
And as a metod science isn't against anithing(it wouldn't make sense(go against a moral is moral!))

But the scientist must be ethical it wouldn't be that great if scientist will torture people like 60 years ago or would follow the nazi method or other things
P.s.
Science has anything to do with name or opinion like the one of watson,that indeed isn't a fact,
Principi autoritate hasn't place in science even of nobel

i meant what i said , i dont have autism

Edgy as fuck.
*tips fedora*