Signup
LoginBelieve in science & ethics
588 posts
-
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:What is ethics anyway? Why should people agree on ethics at all?
I guess the ethics here supposedly refers as values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions
But as time passes, people turns to monetary benefits over moral ethics. Inorder not to deviate too far from TS header "Believe in Science $ ethics". We created a new concept (Science + Profits = Ethics).
As so to support the new concept, the government decided to bring in the new hubbies of such
1) Singapore,the Healthcare Service Hub of Asia
2) Singapore,the Science Hub,
3) Singapore,the Global Bioscience Hub
-
-
-
Ethics?
You mean these?
-
-
-
Originally posted by ^mR.yellow^86:haha is there mathematicasl proof? i would like to know if there is
The superstring theories are part of the mathematical proof but to qualify the theories is another story altogether.(Taken from"The Theory Formerly Known As Strings". Scientific American, February 1998, pages 64-69.) NB. new studies prove there may be 10, 11 or 26 dimensions. Damn, I got to update my quantum mechanics and superstring theories again.
-
-
-
I don't really believe in Science.
Especially on health.
So many cases that this expert say something, then after many years, another expert said that the previous expert was wrong, it's actually total opposite.
So which expert at which time should we believe??
What ever we believe in now(told and proven by expert), maybe 5-10 years later another expert will prove them totally wrong.
So how?
-
-
-
Originally posted by mochou:I don't really believe in Science.
Especially on health.
So many cases that this expert say something, then after many years, another expert said that the previous expert was wrong, it's actually total opposite.
So which expert at which time should we believe??
What ever we believe in now(told and proven by expert), maybe 5-10 years later another expert will prove them totally wrong.
So how?This is an incorrect perception.
Science is ever evolving. With new information means changes. This is how it works. It is bad Science to leave things as it is especially when proven wrong.
-
-
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:This is an incorrect perception.
Science is ever evolving. With new information means changes. This is how it works. It is bad Science to leave things as it is especially when proven wrong.I understand your point that we should doubt things so that we prove them wrong and come up with new real truths.
But before it's proven wrong, we have been believing in wrong things. And the newly proven truth, may end up being wrong when a better expert prove it wrong after some years.
-
-
-
Originally posted by mochou:I understand your point that we should doubt things so that we prove them wrong and come up with new real truths.
But before it's proven wrong, we have been believing in wrong things. And the newly proven truth, may end up being wrong when a better expert prove it wrong after some years.That depends on the vigour of the proof.
The trouble with say medicine, is that a lot of stuff they do is based on studies, which are riddled with statistical problems etc.
-
-
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:The superstring theories are part of the mathematical proof but to qualify the theories is another story altogether.(Taken from"The Theory Formerly Known As Strings". Scientific American, February 1998, pages 64-69.) NB. new studies prove there may be 10, 11 or 26 dimensions. Damn, I got to update my quantum mechanics and superstring theories again.
Until Superstring theories deduce something that can proven in the lab, it's all going to be mathematical plooey.
But they go round in circles, Physicists shall just have to work on stuff that is more easily accessible like finding the Higgs particle, and in areas in Atomic Molecular Optics and Condensed Matter.
-
