The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > How can we uphold the right to science? > Comments

How can we uphold the right to science? : Comments

By Jessica Wyndham, published 2/1/2009

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights acknowledges the right to science as a human right equal to all others.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
A very interesting article.

Thanks.

Rosie
Posted by Rosie Williams, Friday, 2 January 2009 11:06:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I always find articles along these lines strange and disturbing. Linking science with any form of morality or goodness is like saying we should save the world but putting train drivers in charge. A train driver drives a train. A train driver should not be required to judge the morals or worthiness of those who ride on the train.
The suggestion that scientists should have any moral or special responsibilities to decide how science is used is one of the problems. We do not need more experts telling us what to do. We need a population that thinks for itself and makes choices. I don't want a scientist telling me how good genetic engineering, or how safe nuclear power is. I want to be part of decision making process.
I would like a reversal of the present situation. Instead of scientists working behind closed doors, and then telling us what they have done when it is too late, I would like a thinking population telling scientist what they want them to do. Democracy depends on people being told the truth. Without that we have no choices.
Science is totally undemocratic because we are told nothing, and we end up with no choice except to take what we are given. Trust me, I am a scientist? Never.
Posted by Daviy, Friday, 2 January 2009 11:31:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The path to hell is by the way of good intentions. This sums up my attitude to most human rights language. Simply proclaiming a new right even if it is a right to motherhood is just wishful thinking. All we require to subvert all of the human rights language is one dark tyrant and the whole edifice of good intentions comes tumbling down. The only thing that will ameliorate the human condition is a change of heart from greed and corruption to self giving and love. Without that all of the wonderful science in the world will not make much difference. The solution to the worlds problems may be found in science and technology but that will be subverted by the darkness of the human heart. We need a change of mind.

Peter Sellick
Posted by Sells, Friday, 2 January 2009 11:41:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is based on a flawed and unethical idea that a right is whatever the state or UN says it is. But this cannot be right.

For example, slavery and other forms of forced servitude have been legal in many societies in many ages. Can there be such a thing as a “right” to rape, robbery, or slavery – if the state or the UN declare it?

This issue was raised in Rosie Williams’ article a while back, in which we inquired into the ethical distinction between taxation and various forms of forced labour or slavery. As I showed later Rosie, there is none: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8260&page=3

Rosie and Jessica, I would be interested in your response to those reasons.

There is no such thing as a “right” to someone else’s labour or the fruits of their labour, taken without their consent by violence or threats of violence. There is no such thing as a “right” to robbery, or rape, or slavery.

So far so good, you might say.

But *even if* the government assumes for itself such a “right” to commit what it rightly makes a crime for everyone else, it still doesn’t make it right. Mere legality will not answer for the issue of morality, and neither will numbers, nor utility.

At risk of breaching Godwin’s law, the Nazis took great care to cover all their nefarious acts with the mantle of positive law, because they believed the positivist theory of law that is implicit in the author’s thesis: rights are whatever the government says they are and backs up with force or threats.

Ultimately such a theory of rights rests on an asserted “right” to bash into submission anyone who doesn’t agree to submit and obey in having their person, their liberty or their property commandeered for whatever purpose the statist wants.

There is only a right to anything if it involves no use of force or threats to violate someone else’s life, liberty, or property.

By all means, let us have a caring and sharing world – based on voluntary action, not force masquerading as piety.
Posted by Diocletian, Friday, 2 January 2009 8:57:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diocletian, Godwin's law isn't a rule issued from Internet HQ that forbids comparison with Nazis. It simply states that the longer on online debate continues, the more likely it is that such a comparison will occur.

I would argue, Daviy, that we already have "a thinking population telling scientist what they want them to do", which operates through capitalism. Science regularly delivers improved technologies for convenience and safety, driven by the profit motive. As we've seen with climate change, powerful vested interests can derail the delivery of popular scientific advances, but not forever.

I don't think the author is arguing for the tools of science to be invested with an inherent morality, but that access to science should be a right in order that it can be used to achieve moral ends. The restriction of birth control and scientifically accurate HIV information in Africa is a case in point of people being denied a right to powerful tools for the improvement of their society.

Sells' comment (and his articles published on OLO) should serve as a reminder that the road to the Dark Ages was paved with religious denial of scientific information. If people wish to make an informed choice to deny themselves the benefits of science, that is their right. But to deny access to accurate information on religious or ideological grounds is an assault on human rights.
Posted by Sancho, Friday, 2 January 2009 9:23:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho, Sells is not knocking science,but making the valid point that what matters is whether people people act with good, informed volition - wisdom, compassion and clear understanding - and that this is not dependent on, nor guaranteed by, creation of nominal "rights". Rights are a social construct rather than inherent in nature, and many promoters of particular rights seem to me to be blinkered and ideological, whatever the merit of their intentions.
Posted by Faustino, Saturday, 3 January 2009 9:03:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I know that many people may not agree with me, but I consider myself to be a scientist. When I began to study theosophy and Saint Germain Foundation literature, I was advised that I should not take on faith what I was told in the books, but instead, I should test everything to discover for myself what is true and what is false.

Since that time, I discovered a higher kingdom of nature, spoken of by Jesus Christ, but clarified by THE SECRET DOCTRINE, by Blavatsky. This kingdom of nature makes a descent into form by pairing with and occupying the human form in a period of three races. At first, the kingdom hovers above our human, then the two exist side by side (6th human race), and then the girasas ascends the human to the "hovering above" state.

I challenge lawmakers and scientists to comprehend and connect what was written in the 19th Century in this new way and to make it possible for human beings to work with the girasas kingdom inside of them, happily and progressively.
Posted by work4hpb, Sunday, 4 January 2009 5:56:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
work4hpb

^I know that many people may not agree with me, but I consider myself to be a scientist.^

I consider you to be deluded.
You should be angry with the person who put this meme into your brain.
Please do not try to spread such nonsense.
Posted by undidly, Sunday, 4 January 2009 6:50:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author writes: "On December 10 the world marked 60 years since the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a global framework for human rights, which includes the right to "share in scientific advancement and its benefits""

The above is not a right to science. The above is a right to have technology generated by science made available.

A right to science would involve training in the scientific method which involves making hypotheses and testing them, thinking critically and examining the evidence on which assertions are based.

I wish that type of thinking was universally promoted. It will not be because religious indoctrination, advertising, appeals to people to agree to go to war against others in a different nation and other emotional appeals would be made more difficult when addressed to a population conditioned to use the scientific method when examining assertions.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 4 January 2009 3:58:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Undidly,

And that is what is so wonderful about science. If you don't like what I've written, perhaps it is because you didn't spend 20 years studying the literature and 14 more years telling others your findings in order for them to turn a deaf ear. I don't especially like what I have written, but it is there for anyone with an interest to re-discover for themselves.

I guarantee you that if you do the reading and analyzing you will find this idea present (behind veils), just waiting for someone to pick it up and explore with it.

May I suggest an article in What is Evolution? magazine (recently changed to EvolutionNext) called "The REAL Evolution Debate" available for reading at http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j35/real-evolution-debate-intro.asp

Theosophy is presented in Category #9 however it is grossly lacking in the presentation of my recent findings. I notified the editors recently, so we will see if they prefer my version of theosophy to the old standard one.
Posted by work4hpb, Sunday, 4 January 2009 4:08:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Carl Sagan remarked back in 1995;

'We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster.'

Governments must have a strong and decisive commitment to science education for the good of society. Scientific literacy in Western countries is not only essential for prosperity, but also for cultural identity. Newton, Darwin and Einstein are at the core of what it means to be Western. We forget about them at our peril.
Posted by TR, Sunday, 4 January 2009 7:33:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are two schools of thought about rights: the positivist and the natural law.

The positivists start by denying that there can be rights as a matter of nature. Rights are a social construct, they say, and vary with culture and time. So rights are whatever society says they are. In modern society this means in effect that rights are whatever the state says they are.

This is unsatisfactory for the reasons given.

The natural law school starts by saying that rights have in common that they are enforceable. Thus they all necessarily concern the ethics relating to the use of violence or threats of violence – force - by one human or group of humans against another. A right is something you are ethically justified in using force to defend.

The contents of rights are a social construct, not in the sense that they are arbitrary, but in the sense that they derive from the logic of human action.

The starting point is that you own your own life. The right of self-ownership gives rise to all other rights. This must necessarily be so, says the natural law school, for two main reasons. Firstly, no-one can deny the proposition without self-contradiction. If you deny that you own your life, therefore you deny that you have the right to speak on your own account to make the denial. The illogic shows that the assertion is wrong.

Secondly, anyone who denies the axiom of self-ownership implicitly asserts that someone else owns him. He must appeal to the absent authority of the person who owns him in order to participate in the debate. Quite apart from the absurdity, this is a slave philosophy. A philosophy of rights based on the idea that one can own the life of another against their will is self-evidently ethically wrong. Who will deny that?
Posted by Diocletian, Sunday, 4 January 2009 8:17:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we accept the positivist idea that rights are whatever the state says they are, rights become nothing but a cipher for the interests and arbitrary power of whatever group is in power. And that is exactly what has happened with the positivist conception of rights, which should therefore be rejected. Robbery, rape, slavery, forced labour – these things are violations and are wrongs. It is mere confusion to call them rights, whether or not they are legal in a given place or time.

The right of self-ownership gives rise only to rights not to be aggressed against, and to use force to repel such aggression, for example, the freedom of speech, association including family, employment and business, assembly, movement, and the consequential rights, such as ownership of the fruits of one’s labour – the right to private property. It *never* gives rise to rights based on aggressing against others. Therefore there is no such thing as the right to someone else’s efforts taken by force or threats, which includes anything funded by taxation, which can only legally, but not ethically be distinguished from forced labour or robbery. Anyone asserting so contradicts himself, and proffers a confused slave philosophy asserting some wrongs to be morally superior on false utilitarian grounds.
Posted by Diocletian, Sunday, 4 January 2009 8:21:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
faustino, sells may not be knocking science. perhaps just damning it with non-existent praise? sells indeed has a point: science is not sufficient. unfortunately, it's not clear whether sells realises the other half: science is necessary.
Posted by bushbasher, Sunday, 4 January 2009 8:31:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm very glad to hear some straight talk about the way laws exist. There are some good minds here who are respectful of ideas. I write from a personal perspective and would just like to say that self-ownership works as long as the human being is in control.

Should we (those who are conceiving with the girasas kingdom) attempt to lengthen the time that we can be in charge? To what extent should we take this maneuver? As much as I can appreciate the time it takes to go from discovery to market with any science, it is possible that simply leaving the methods of worship ("I AM" Temple, for myself) will not curtail the process once begun. What if it is only possible to regain control of the "self" through sinning?

I think that if we are to have any kind of "paired" success in life, we (the girasas and humans) will need to have synchronized needs. My need is to bring attention to the dilemma I find myself in. The girasas may have a need to be known more fully for what they are.

In some ways, I would like nothing better than to continue my worship practices. I worry that perhaps my family is suffering from my attempted separation from them (temporarily). I know that I have a dear friend who supported me all these years with the friendship and love of his family for ours, who is suffering. Of course, funds come into question because I haven't made a cent (other than when I was a real estate appraiser here in Los Angeles). I'm sharing what I know, but I doubt if people realize the cost to us due to this endeavor. But again, I can't begin to calculate the cost if I don't speak out.

I was hoping for a malpractice lawsuit against newspapers for some potential relief.
Posted by work4hpb, Monday, 5 January 2009 6:14:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those interested in human rights issues, the government is holding public consultations around the nation over coming months to hear the views of people who have registered to attend their 'community roundtables'.

"Key Consultation Questions

* Which human rights and responsibilities should be protected and promoted?
* Are human rights sufficiently protected and promoted?
* How could Australia better protect and promote human rights?"

The public can make submissions and get further info here (by May 29, 2009):
http://www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/www/nhrcc/nhrcc.nsf/Page/Share_Your_Views

regards
Rosie Williams
Posted by Rosie Williams, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 1:47:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rosie

May I have your response to the question how taxation can be ethically distinguished from forced labour, and my argument that it cannot? What argument can you make to justify taxation given the reasoning that neither legality, majority nor utility is able to ethically distinguish it from forced labour? Do you admit the argument, and if not, why not?
Posted by Diocletian, Wednesday, 7 January 2009 8:58:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rosie
The right to science is an essential human right to share in the bountiful reservoirs of human knowledge.

On the other hand, the right to religious belief is based on the freedom to hold doctrinal delusional fantacies as self-evident truth, usually based on unchallengable 'holy scripts'. Science and religion have never been allies. Scientists like Galillao have been persecuted by religious zealots for sharing their science with society.

Who deserves the greater protection? Should it be the followers of religion or those who promote science?

For a secular government, the answer is clear. But how secular are Australian governments? From a review of legislation in Australia it would seem that religious rights have been over-protected with exemptions to religious predjudices sought and freely given, allowing anti-discrimuination laws to be undermined.

Taxpayer largesse to preferred religions includes tax exemptions and grants that extend to recruitment and self-promotion events such as World Youth Day.

How could Australia better protect and promote human rights? Perhaps by dropping the Lords Prayer at the opening of parliamentary sittings. Its replacement with a few moments of reflection would be a good first step.
Posted by Quick response, Thursday, 8 January 2009 3:33:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Quick response,

Science and religion have often been allies. "Pythagoras' Trousers" by Margaret Wertheim tells the story of that alliance in regards to physics. They part company when scientific findings challenge religious dogma. Much scientific study has explored the workings of nature to substantiate the idea of an intelligence behind it all.

Religion has often interfered with scientific research. However, to say that they are always in opposition is not so.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 8 January 2009 3:46:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diocletian,

Rosie didn't respond to your questions regarding taxation and forced labor, so I thought I might begin with a comment regarding your post:

The very act of having labor forced negates the necessity to pay. In a sense, after undergoing an "epiphany" of sorts regarding our evolutionary goal and status in life ( http://www.homestead.com/theosophy/ascension.html ), I often felt very much as if I was forced into these nearly 15 years of contacting others, always pursuing an outlet for my discovery. I haven't been paid a cent unless you want to include my worldly position as real estate appraiser as an honor for having come to the conclusion about the existence of a girasas kingdom. I cannot agree that taxation is in any way forced labor due to the recognition of the work done with pay.

Whether I am forced to work by a girasas kingdom (or not) and whether I am forced to work by my conscience that dictates an urge to make known to you what I consider to be an imperative for each human in making decisions about how to live and how to accept or reject this "greater kingdom" in them, it is an endeavor that I want to end. Take it from my shoulders in some way if you can.
Posted by work4hpb, Monday, 26 January 2009 7:55:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Then, Quick Response, assails into religious activity with a vengeance on the part of science. In my own experience, I would like to alert Quick Response to the condition that those people who actively pursued a better life and a better "self" by the practice of religion are deserving of his respect, love, and honor, because the path that is strewn before them is unpredictable, full of deception, and often incomprehensible, if not falling directly into the category of betrayal.

When we seek a higher kingdom (I have named this kingdom: girasas.), we do so because alone we stand faltering to offer even goodness to our fellow man. And when we discover this "presence" within us, how many have determined it to be a living, breathing life form with the goal of removing all human life from the earth and instituting their own kind as a replacement of us? I think I yet am the only one. Jesus Christ taught us about this kingdom, although few have listened or deciphered it to mean in the fullest extent of its meaning that we will succumb to them in spite of our best efforts to prevent them from gaining foothold on earth and in human life.

If government and science shun them from "entry" (which they should not by any means do), then their practice will fall upon the mean and lowly, those currently demonstrating to be incapable of greatness (without them). If we could just open up to what is happening on a global scene and not resent that someone with very little talent can become occupied by this great kingdom to an unpredictable result, we can learn that we are all important in working towards a common goal of return to autonomy - or in the case of those who cannot conceive of this occurrence - a rejection of all similitude to each other. Can you in any way shape or form still find your brother human within the difficult combination of human-girasas?
Posted by work4hpb, Monday, 26 January 2009 7:55:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy