The goal of the researcher is to produce something good and useful. Perhaps people use it in the wrong or right way, and this is not the fault of the researcher.
The goal of the researcher is to produce something good and useful. Perhaps people use it in the wrong or right way, and this is not the fault of the researcher.
"I produce an object. what people make of it is not my concern". Agree with auther if he produce a good thing.
If the work is beneficial to society and has good results.
why not ..
Good luck ...
It is not always easy to judge the results of a research that is totally good or bad or just or wrong.
In my opinion, a researcher needs to pay great attention when his researches are reeling ethical issues.
Maybe because of credulity, I believe a research honestly done leave no space to unscrupulous use. Because unscrupulous uses always catch on the weak points of the research. And an honest research must of course take in account the readers. What I wonder is up to where a research is able to overcome time derivations of meaning and former consequences of historical errors and unpredictable build-ups .
Where possible the inventor should think through as much of the consequences of the invention (i.e., applications) as possible. That being said, it is not always possible to forecast the evil applications someone else may put that invention towards. Remember Alfred Nobel, the inventor of the dynamite. His goal was to come up with an invention that would be useful in blasting rocks and mountains to help in construction of roads, dams, etc. He was mortified when he saw that the power of the dynamite was used in a destructive manner harming humanity. He felt so much remorse that he donated all the reward money he received for his invention into what is now known as the Nobel Prize.
Yes I agree with a condition that this object is executable in the Labor market.
I think Alfred Nobel was absolutely aware of the destructive power of its invention. But how do you stop a very interesting research? More, normally ideas pop up among various brains at the same time. If he wasn't to reveal his discovery, most probably, within some years, some other would have done it, maybe with worst consequences. At least, he humbly offered Humanity something: Nobel prizes.
I just produced an descriptive object a few weeks back, it is intensive research as one focus this new year of a primary scientist and master meditator investigating the Qi and Prana Systems physical/immaterial interface, but the description put someone off who thought it was making up words that are non-accessible:
======
Meditation retreat on “Dreaming of Reality: The Integration of Science and Spirituality in Lucid Dreaming, Physics, & Dream Yoga,”
University of Wales, Lampeter Campus, Wales, U.K.
Sponsored by the Contemplative Consciousness Network
-======
It is qualified by a presentation among multiple templates, and requires advanced understanding of its subject matter with foundational practices of a science of consciousness.
https://www.academia.edu/38062639/Prana_and_Qi_Systems_Science_Interfaces_Qi_and_Prana_.doc
I told him it was a polite practice to re-suure
If the researcher is working in a program that, for example, directly produces chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, he or she is not in a position to plead innocence as to how they could be used, since they only have one use, namely to kill large numbers of people.
Samuel Beckett was a novelist, so his "produced object" was a literary work, and by "make of it" he meant interpretation and evaluation. Indeed, a writer isn't necessarily the best interpreter of his own work since he is using the resources of a public language and is embedded in a cultural community and others may have better oversight and insight into what he is accomplishing. A scientist, by contrast, is typically more aware of how his research could be used. In that respect, others may be better implementers of his research but, at least in the case of weapons research, not better interpreters of the research.
Each project has a good side and a bad side. You cant control how the people use it as it depend on their personality and intention
Yes I totally agree. We have seen many examples also. For mankind and he's prosperity, many things have been discovered, but we misused them. And this is not the fault of the inventor or researcher.
There is scientific research and there is scientific tampering, and the researcher is supposed to be responsible for his ideas before he is responsible for his actions
Although we cannot control the use my findings, however we can be careful so that it doesn't go to wrong hand.
In these ways such questions are not such of a philosophy of science, and nurturing and producing System objects with caring attentiveness, loving-concern, and dedication to the branch-details, happens as special feature of "experiential philosophy" (acc. to interdisciplinary scientist of Consciousness Studies,, B Alan Wallace; Unified theory of Ontological Relativity S/Gtor). All the branches demonstrate complementarity in the valid psychological, physical and immaterial senses reflected in 'Mental Primary Sense Consciousness' alike magnetic fields.
Research should be geared with the immediate and long term needs of the society. As such, scientific research is mainly conducted to describe the realities of the world and elucidate how the world around us is functioning. One of the main aspects of the acquired knowledge through research , therefore, is that it can help develop different sectors of the society including industry, education, governmental practices, the health system , etc. Accordingly, as you have astutely observed, research findings must be in harmony with people's needs.
No, I do not agree. Think of the atomic bomb, or more recently of a lethal virus developed in a lab.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy