Science and Ethics

Human beings are thinking creatures. As such, they seek knowledge about the natural world and the world of morality.  This paper will delve deeper into the details of the scientific method, benefit risk analysis, and an evolutionary theory for ethical beliefs. Scientific methods and bennifit/risk analysis are useful for gaining knowledge, but a correct view of ethics is crucial.

Charles M Wynn and Arthur W. Wiggins write in their book, The Five Biggest Ideas in Science, “Observations and experiments are the ‘facts’ upon which scientific hypothesis are based…[b]oth observation and experimentation demand valid, specific measurements of physical reality” (BIS, 107-108). While there are certainly some similarities between observation and experimentation there are also some differences. A scientist controls experiments more than a scientist controls observations, and observations more easily avoid ethical complications (Fennell).

Once scientists make an observation they might create a hypothesis. Wynn and Wiggins nicely document this shift, “The step from the observations to the hypothesis involves a representation of physical reality by symbols such as letters, numbers, or words” (BIS, 108). These mentioned representations range from words to mathematical equations (BIS, 111). This shift is known as “abstraction” which is, “[t]he substitution of symbols (such as the word electron) for physical reality” (BIS, 109). Inductive reasoning takes the “certain truths” observed and forms an “uncertain generality” (BIS, 110).  This kind of reasoning helps scientists form a hypothesis. Another form of reasoning is deductive reasoning, “this [is a] form of logic in which specific truths are derived from general truths is referred to as deductive reasoning” (BIS, 114). Scientists use deductive reasoning to make predictions based on their hypotheses.

Scientists test their predictions with experiments, but before they can do so they must perform “deabstraction” which is, “a return to physical reality from the symbolic world of the hypothesis and prediction” (BIS, 116). Scientists should not weight to heavily whether or not the experiment disproves or approves the predication. If it does not aid the expiriment, the hypothesis can be changed and “recycled.” If it does aid the experiment, later experiments may disprove it. Scientific knowledge is always growing and being adapted (BIS, 116-7).

Even after scientific knowledge is gathered, individuals must interpret how they should apply this knowledge to the various aspects of life. Every human being must decide what the right thing to do is, and if there is even such a thing as right and wrong. Wynn and Wiggins argue that beliefs on ethics and values simply evolved as humand changed, “Ethics arose as a result of the appearance of human personal and social self-consciousness, when humans found they had to make conscious choice of action in a social context. Modern ethical codes evolved from survival-oriented rules that applied to the individual. The rules were extended to deal with the family and then the tribe” (BIS, 122). There is no objective moral/ethical standard humans ought to live by. Instead, everyone is to do what is right in his or her own eyes (BIS, 123). Yet, such misleading view of ethics has very drastic consequences for science and religion.

Wynn and Wiggins are correct in stating that, “Scientific understandings and human values are links in the chain of reasoning that must be used when making decisions about potential technological applications” (BIS, 124). Yet perhaps what they do not realize is that denying an ethical standard also denies any sensible form of benefit/risk analysis. In order to complete benefit risk analysis, one must have a standard of what is a benefit and what is a risk besides personal preference. Wynn and Wiggins themselves argue their own ethical values, “When matter is accessible and useful it is a resource; when it is in the wrong place at the wrong time it is a pollutant” (BIS, 126). Wynn and Wiggins cannot consistently argue for a subjective view of ethics and at the same time support their own argument for what is “useful” and what is a “pollutant.” What argument could Wynn and Wiggins provide to a person who thought it “useful” to dump toxic chemical in local water supplies? What could they say to the person who thought it “wrong” to recycle? They could argue nothing against their ethical values without disregarding their own statement arguing for subjective morality.

Humans have devised a very effective way of learning about the physical world, that is the scientific methods and benefit/risk analysis. However, if humanity does not accept that there are at least some universal ethical truths, most if not all scientific discoveries are made in vain. Wynn and Wiggins rightly state that, “The power of scientific ideas must be used as wisely as possible, for any decision will affect not only this generation, but also generations to come” (BIS, 138) Yet, any idea of what is a wise action has its foundation in universal standard of ethics.

Works Cited

Fennell, Barbara D. "Changing The Universe." Class. Pfiefer Building, Room 226, Point Lookout. 
     12 Sept. 2012. Lecture.

Wynn, Charles M., and Arthur W. Wiggins. "The Road to Discovery." The Five Biggest Ideas In   
     Science. New York: Wiley, 1997. Print.