Dear Lilliana,

Going to your links above, I can understand that you agree that there can not be such an interefence of religious and moral codes to reseachers. So your question is more like a criticism of such a practice?

When the goal is to impose religious or moral codes, the people involved are no longer researchers, they are representatives of those forces. They are no longer looking for anything and should never be called a researchers.

When we take into account any other values which are not part of our search we blindfold ourselves. Say, scientists want to find out how gall bladder works and they agree not to open a body because of religious concepts, they decided to give up their search. They will probably not be able to conclude anything. At that moment they can stop it or try to guess what would it be like.

Thank you, Vilemar. I totally agree with you. I have been following some questions lately that are so biased that they have given me a continuous migraine!

Best regards, Lilliana

If you are asking about whether a researcher should temper his/her findings so as to not insult the religious or moral attitudes of the country in which he/she works, then the answer should be no. Science has no religious/moral stance and a scientific researcher should only care about getting to the truth. The same can be said about a researcher in history, economics, etc. However, we know that the politics of religion and the moral "right" can impose its will, and thus its hardships, on researchers to the point of endangering their lives. In these cases it is unfortunate that some researchers bow to the pressure, while others flee.

Your question brings to my mind this book " Galileo's Daughter : A historical Memoir of Science, Faith, and Love" by Dava Sobel  ... I do believe when researchers had voiced their findings in one domain of knowledge MUST be mindful of its applications/interpretations towards/unto 'other' domains.  It might be wise that they maintain their faith and innocence by each other's right to remain silent. 

I erred. Scientists should have morals and not do immoral research. But, those morals should be human morals, not religious morals.

Whatever the motivations, human morals are essential in science practice 

No, dear James, I am talking about how the researcher's religion or morals interfere in their interpretation of research or manipulate research outcomes to prove or demonstrate the validity of their moral or religious opinion. Scientist do not have "morals", but "ethics". There is quite a difference between the two.

Best regards, Lilliana

Marcel, "morals" have a slim foundation is usages and customs, they are never subjected to philosophical inquiry. That's why we speak of "ethical" codes when we talk about professions, and not about morality. Maybe you mean "ethics", not morals.

It's always a pleasure to receive your visit, Marcel.

Best regards, Lilliana

Lilliana,

Ethics is fine (too)

Cheers

Definition of moral as you know

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/moral

Conducting right versus wrong cannot be applied in research?

They are quite different, dear Marcel. "Morals" —usages and customs— are usually inherited through tradition and are seldom questioned. "Ethics" is basically the critical thinking aimed at morals. Ethics belongs to philosophy and systematic critical  thought, while morals belong by anthropology.

Best regards, Lilliana

No. Ethics are universal, even though we may disagree on what to do in particular instances. Religion is a belief system, which at times, informs us about morality, and as such is important. The real question is whether we can have ethics without the belief in God, but not necessarily in an "organized" religion.

I see the two as intertwined, morals and ethics. Can you be ethical and at the same time be moral? Vice-versus?

As to your question's intent, it is unfortunate that some researchers manipulate their results in order to get the results that they want, regardless of whether there is any religious or moral incentive. We have seen plenty of that in recent years where scientist faked their data in order to garner fame or get further research grants. Is faking the data for religious or moral reasons worse? Besides, I have been on the other end, disproving a scientist's entire dissertation with solid, irrefutable work.

This question comes at an opportune time as I just learned last night that one of our state government senators has introduced a bill that would require Creationism to be taught in our primary schools while downplaying Evolution. He stood on the senate floor and told the representatives that scientific research in the last few decades has proven the biblical story of creation, that remnants of Noah's ark have been found and retrieved from the top of a mountain, and that rock circles prove the 6-day creation story is true. Apparently the scientists that he listens to have their own agenda. You could say that some scientists and politicians use science like some economists use statistics.

Science and research as a culture-specific activity is part of anthropology, or not?

Marcel, it is my experience that complex terms like "morals" or "ethics" have superficial definitions in common dictionaries. They should be looked up in more serious and specialized sources.

Besides, "right" and "wrong" are hard to tell apart, and seem to depend on "common sense", which also comes from usage and custom. A better society cannot depend on millennary usages that are evidently unfair, unjust or questionable. It is a usage not to employ women for so many things, based on a certain idea of what a woman is. The same with African-Americans: they are not supposed to be good university professors because they have not had a good education (mainly because they are not allowed into the good grade schools). Those are traditional prejudices. Ethics go beyond the trite, the traditional, those things we believe without understanding why they should be believed. 

Most ethical decisions have not to do with "right" and "wrong", but what is appropriate or not, with what is just or not. When we judge based on morals, we say: "you cannot do that in this community, because it has never be done like this." In a community based on ethics, we say, "This person is a human being with the same rights and attributions the others have, and even if the law forbids giving him or her this or that, we must because all human beings are accorded the same rights." I hope you see the difference. 

The "philosophy of right" is quite complex precisely because the usual challenges come from the side of "morals" and what are called "entitlements". Entitlements are such things as "I am white and I am better and I deserve the best", or "She is a woman and she does not deserve to earn the same high salary as a man who does the same work she does." Entitlements are traditional, they are based on morals. AND usually, these morals have been defended by and incorporated into religious tenets in such a way that these entitlements seem to have been granted eternity by God himself.

That is the problem, Marcel. Science cannot be based on "morals", or "right/wrong" premises. Most people think it is wrong to give employment to women... Or that is is wrong to wait until a baby born hermaphrodite is old enough to decide what it wishes to be: man, woman, or both. Most of these children are forced, an childbirth, to become women because the surgery for that is cheaper. There are so many examples! See all these Near-Eastern refugees treated as animals in Europe, as a plague that threats our civilization. No, they are people with the same human rights we have, regardless of how much we will have to do to keep them alive and well... regardless of the fact that they may have a different religion and different customs and usages.

Best regards, Lilliana

Dear Liliana,

Your own definition on ethics and moral seems to me a not distinguishing classification.

“Marcel, "morals" have a slim foundation is usages and customs, they are never subjected to philosophical inquiry. That's why we speak of "ethical" codes when we talk about professions, and not about morality. Maybe you mean "ethics", not morals. “

Regarding my moral backgrounds I need even in simple events of life philosophical foundations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethic

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ethics

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

"Simple Definition of moral

: concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behaviour

: based on what you think is right and good

: considered right and good by most people: agreeing with a standard of right behavior"

"Simple Definition of ethic

: rules of behaviour based on ideas about what is morally good and bad

ethics: an area of study that deals with ideas about what is good and bad behavior : a branch of philosophy dealing with what is morally right or wrong

: a belief that something is very important"

However, these are only the formal manifestations of ethical/moral rules many scientists do not follow. Can you assess the rate of mercenary scientists/researchers. They can be recognised that not philosophical or traditional human values influence them even in their professional work but practical things like money, power and vanity.

I am sorry I was too long because I had no time to write more concisely.   

Marcel,

Cultural anthropology specifically studies culture. The determination of culture-specific activities is the basis of archaeology. In archaeology we interpret the past using science and analogies, like comparative anthropology, experimental archaeology, etc. Cultural anthropology, on the other hand, studies a culture, how it came about, what makes it work, how it holds together, etc. In both of the sub-disciplines, cultural anthropology and archaeology, we strive to understand the evidence before us without injecting our own or our culture's religious or moral values into our interpretations and conclusions.

In the case of my wayward senator, I think that if we saw a biblical scholar that traveled  to the Middle East and excavated 20 sites and each site proved beyond a doubt a story of the Bible, we would then say something was amiss, would we not?

Dear Andras, as I said to Marcel, common dictionaries, based literally on "word usage" or the traditional and common meaning given to words, are not good sources for a discussion such as this, with such heavy import on the meaning of words that belong to the complex fields of study such as anthropology ("morals") or philosophy ("ethics"). As a professional researcher, I use professional sources, especially if the words I have to use are not part of my professional lexicon as an art and architecture historian and critic. I like philosophy and I know a few things, but this is not my main field. So resort to professional dictionaries. Here are a few philosophy dictionaries on line. You can register for free in some of them and there are many more apart from those I give you here: Stanford University, Rutledge Dictoriaries and the Britannica:

http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=morals

or

https://www.rep.routledge.com

or

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/

There are many more.

Dear Andras and Marcel, I do not have only one answer to my own question. I just want to express that is is a very serious topic and I want this discussion to be as productive to all of us as possible. 

Thank you for being here commenting on this. I am most grateful.

Lilliana

In practice, moral standards will differ between universities (e.g. catholic versus moslim versus buddhist versus....), and this therefore will also be associated with the kinds of research conducted in a given university where supported topics will be filtered out by the university administration? There is a substantial difference between 'theory' and 'practice', or not?

Dear James, anthropologists study "morals" as a cultural fact, as evidence of the ways and means of a culture, as something a culture produces in terms of what the word "mores" means: usages and customs which, as you know, have to with most aspects of culture: usages in medicine, usages in interpreting the skies and reading the stars, usages as to what is a woman and what is a man, about what is "proper behavior", etc. That is why I say that the best way to study morals is focusing of how morality changes with time as culture changes. The history of morals teaches us a lot about the change in all aspects of society. Deciding on right or wrong is always a culture-specific moral decision, as you say. Ethics goes way beyond that, as it operates, first of all, as a critical exercise on morals on "common sense". We will often find that a moral tenet and an ethics principle will coincide. But that is not always the case. In fact, our prejudices have usually a moral origin. Prejudices are bad of a society to be just and fair.

Thank you for coming in!

Warm regards, Lilliana

Marcel,

Undoubtedly. I would counter with the fact that many of those religious-based (founded) universities also are going to hire and offer tenure to researchers who fit their philosophy. Hopefully, most prestigious universities have moved past this practice, but I have heard of a few that still don't want to hire researchers that might prove their doctrine wrong. But as I said, if you heard that St. Vincent's School of Higher Learning found, during archaeological excavations, two lion skeletons lying next to two gazelle skeletons, thus proving the story of Noah's ark, you most likely would be skeptical about motives.

At this point in time most researchers know or can find out what type of research (or its bias) usually comes out of a particular university research program.

Lilliana,

The mores of a culture are very important and that culture usually can not survive without adherence to them, even if they do slowly change over time. My hat is tipped to all of the cultural anthropologists out there who dedicated their careers to figuring out the inner-workings of different cultures.

I do understand the difference between morals and ethics. One debate of recent years (still ongoing) is the morality of cloning a human being and the ethical consideration of doing it.

Best,

JAG

Dear Liliana,

 Entitlements have not much to do with either moral or ethics. Entitlements are consequences of having the power. There are always philosophers or scientists who prepare explanations for politicians in order to enforce their interests.  

I think you may be somehow one sided when stressing:

"I am white and I am better and I deserve the best", or "She is a woman and she does not deserve to earn the same high salary as a man who does the same work she does." 

I may be too naïve but these phrases are very old common places and lost their acute relevancy long time ago at least in most European countries.  Anyway, here you can find a detailed description how women are treated in some countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation 

I would like to know how much wage these mutilated women can earn in their countries?

Let us see your another example:

“See all these Near-Eastern refugees treated as animals in Europe, as a plague that threats our civilization. No, they are people with the same human rights we have, regardless of how much we will have to do to keep them alive and well... regardless of the fact that they may have a different religion and different customs and usages. “

Dear Liliana,

You live several thousand km from the events happened in Europe however you think to be able to assess what occurred there. In Austria, Germany, Finland, Sweden etc. migrants were welcomed more than friendly. And what happened some moths later?  European women were treated as potential prostitutes.  If you allow me I cite you: these raped women “are people with the same human rights” as human beings must have, regardless that they are in their own country…

I am afraid situations are much more complex and complicated as one thinks they seem to be.

My personal thought on the matter and having done expert witness, is that we need to differentiate the different levels of interpretation. As an example, my role as expert witness(and as scientist) is to interpret the evidence blindly (yes, you need a moral vacuum to do so, and so should research). Within this role there is no margin for opinion or bias, unless you want your testimony to be excluded. The judge/jury role is then to look at the circumstance on which the events took place, look at the evidence and pass judgment on the events. I think that a similar distinction should be made in science. While you may not like what you find, you report it, and then separately pass judgment on the subject (if that is your desire).

I have been faced with evidence on which my perspective is that a person was guilty, nonetheless I presented the evidence in a non biased way with all my expertise and experience. Why? Because it is not about that specific case, but all the other cases which will use my testimony to judge possible innocent people(it is really sad to see innocent people ruined unjustly). With science, it is the same, we must not look at the specific instances which we might dislike but future generations which may be impacted by the prejudices (or lack thereof) that we may have.

Regards

Dear Liliana,

Regarding the approach of average or common scientists to philosophical resources or dictionaries, this must be a rarity. Most scientists have not studied philosophy their PhD is but from philosophical point of view an empty formula.

I used to read Kant’s Maxime and the categoricus imperativus. The problem is that Kant formulated variously what may be the ultimate commandment of reason thus this interpretation is difficult to understand reading his works not to speak the dictionary level.  I am afraid average scientist can achieve at most the utilitarian side of ethics.

http://www.ethik-werkstatt.de/Kategorischer_Imperativ.htm#Gesetzesformel

"Handle nur nach derjenigen Maxime, durch die du zugleich wollen kannst, dass sie ein allgemeines Gesetz werde."

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

Dear Marcel,

You are right. The problem is that there is no compromise even at theoretical level. Ethical practice is in the land of tales.

I perfectly understand your dismay, Andras. I agree with you in that every intellectual decides how much knowledge he or she needs to become competent on an issue. So if you believe you have what you need, that's ok with me. I'm sort of different. I enjoy when colleagues direct me to something I am not aware of. I believe in life-long learning. 

Back to the issue at hand, the fact is that ethical practice has less tales than moralism does. The challenge is —in my experience— to try not to mistake morals for ethics. I have to take ethics seminars at my university and they are obligatory. The people who come to teach us really do not know the difference between the two terms. That is why we have tales, not because of ethics as a branch of philosophy is weird or incomprehensible, but because of the impressive ignorance of those who claim to have knowledge about this thorny issue. Besides, moralism has killed more people or deprived more people of their rights than ethics...

Also, Kant is the offspring of the 18th century, and his critique on morals and ethics are not the same thing. That is why we now have very strong debates on the subject of privilege with the participation of people like Lyotard, Levinas, Butler, Deleuze, etc. Ethical principles progress in the process of confronting new forms of prejudice and inequality. That is why Aristotle's two treatises on Ethics are not the last word on the issue. It is important to read beyond Kant. The struggles we have now have made us less optimistic than Kant was when he proposed his categorical imperative.

I am a little impressed about the issue of entitlements not being related to morality. Morals are ALL about entitlements: what some people perceive as their ancestral rights. This is quite a routine in court: whites can kill blacks in the US and go out free. That is happening right now, dear Andras, not in Kant's time. Bernie Sanders is running for president of the US on issues such as white-race entitlements. While Trump is running on his promise of preserving such entitlements. 

The more we study ethics as a critical practice, the less "tales" we ourselves produce and disseminate. As to prejudice and inequality, we have a long way to go, hopefully counting on the good, unbiased work of unprejudiced researchers.

Best regards, Lilliana

There is no 'ethic of objectivity'.   Objectivity is not a virtue or an inherent good.  Objectivity is often an abrogation of moral conviction and an expression of superiority or elitism.

Differences between cultures is also not subject to the notion of objectivity or this weird idea of moral neutrality.  Some cultures are appalling and disgusting, we do not need to be 'objective' about them and it is ethically sound to condemn ignorance or oppression however much it may offend those 'cultures'.

Cultures are not equal and the most base and immoral ones are often in the ascendency, that does not make them acceptable or 'superior'.  Similarly one culture may condemn another as base and immoral, inhuman and noisome with itself being 'wrong' in any ethical sense.

Racist, sexist, religious fundamentalist, supremacist, hegemonist, exploitative and ignorant cultures are garbage to be cast into the pit or the trash can.  Professional researchers have a moral obligation to do just that. 

Dear Barry,

Your contribution was a very appropriate one.  “Objectivity is often an abrogation of moral conviction and an expression of superiority or elitism.” I would add this superiority and elitism are certainly imaginary and invented.

I think however that the demand or criterion of objectivity are wholly nonsense for cultures you mentioned:  “Cultures are not equal and the most base and immoral ones are often in the ascendency,  that does not make them acceptable or 'superior'.  Similarly one culture may condemn another as base and immoral, inhuman and noisome with itself being 'wrong' in any ethical sense. “

Dear Lilliana,

I read the first study https://news.usc.edu/26776/Study-Links-Religious-Groups-and-Racial-Bias/ which is an empirical study linking racist with religiosity in the US. This is the type of study that I find totaly hypocritical.  It is very easy to ostracise a group with this kind of cheap empirical study.  If I would hate black, I would not need a lot of imagination to conceive a very objective empirical study that could link being black with a very negative characteristic.  I can do that with any group I choose and pretend to be totally objective and hide behing the numbers.  I call that scientific racist.  In fact racists started in the 19th century with all kind of empirical studies.  

Dear All,

There are very simple rules to find the right way or discover one’s categorical imperative: Do not do what you don't want others do unto you. One often does not know doing something good however one is always aware of doing bad or evil things. The fundament of ill-will is the lack of altruism. Even I would say many others use the overexploitation of their human rights not to work, not to perform anything but to play the role of self-conscious unfortunate underdog. This can be also a life strategy.   

Dear Louis, that is my point. Unscrupulous researchers hide behind the numbers, once they tweak those numbers according to their bias. 

Best regards, Lilliana

Dear Andras, the process of making justice beyond trite and opportunistic morality is a bit more complex than the Golden Rule. I always find it lamentable when people say that the poor can be lazy, or self-conscious underdogs as "a life strategy". I wonder whether these "underdogs" have been the self-conscious government provocation of absolute marginalization and deprival of other strategies (and I remember what Trump wants to do with the poor and with immigrants, and remember having seen his followers pushing African-Americans US citizens out of his rallies), which is apparently the case, according to other studies some researchers will find questionable. If anecdotes were valid and viable to support serious research, I would say that I have met quite a number of rich boys and girls who will inherit —without an hour of hard work—  the fortune of their parents and are quite lazy and inutile. They try to bully teachers into giving them good grades to survive school, also as a "life strategy", precisely the life strategy that I call "entitlement". Why not "quote" the anecdotical example of the lazy rich instead of the perennial anecdotical example of the lazy poor? Yes, I wonder why it is constantly said that the poor are personally responsible for their poverty...  which is a "moral" affirmation in the most blatant of senses. The alleged laziness and irresponsibility of the poor is always such a neat way to justify all those entitlements. 

Best regards, Lilliana

Dear all, I recognize that many people are trying to debase the concept "objectivity" in the context of this question. I would love to see what would you say is the proper word to use: "evenhandedness"? "Justice"? Finally, "Ethics?" If we renounce any and all possibility of making research less prejudiced, what would research become? Pure ideology, which is my point? This is fascinating!

Thank you for your comments. A lot of food for thought.

Lilliana

Bary, there is the garbage of cultures (I could not quite grasp the meaning of this phrase, or maybe you meant that there are cultures who belong in the garbage, please clarify), and there is the garbage of individuals who self-consciousy write the script of prejudice, many of them calling themselves "researchers" who offer their work to scientifically underpin hate and injustice. It is spooky, don't you think? What would would you use instead of "objectivity"? I am aware that it is hard to find a suitable word.

Best regards, Lilliana

The question: "Should professional researchers override our ethics of objectivity to impose our religion or morality upon the outcome of our work?"

I don't think any researcher would be acting ethically or morally, if he/she deliberately lies about the results of the research, to force-fit some religious dogma. It is unconscionable to think that a researcher would do such a thing.

Objectivity means you publish the results unvarnished. Others are always free to dispute these results with their own findings. I would leave it up to others to dispute the results based only on their religious notions.

There was another thread on here, asking whether academic institutions blocked free expression, or words to that effect. Yes, they probably do, and this is a form of political correctness. If a researcher does not like to publish the findings of his research, the only honorable thing to do is to avoid publishing. Publishing lies is simply, flatly, immoral. Similarly, if a researcher finds that conducting the research involves unethical or immoral activities, then the same thing applies. Do not pursue that research. You still can't be ethical or moral if you lie about it.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ramos-Collado,

you ask:

Should professional researchers override our ethics of objectivity to impose our religion or morality upon the outcome of our work?

---

Basically, I think the answer should be "No." We should not seek to "impose our religion or morality" (or politics). That means concentrating upon areas of broad agreement, or new results of inquiry, and illustrating their relationship to more controversial themes. People should be informed of relevant knowledge or information or be given the opportunity to become informed, so that they can decide difficult issues and questions for themselves.  

If someone believes that particular items or elements of their religion or morality are of crucial or central importance in relation to a topic or debate, then it should be allowed, certainly, that such elements or items be brought into the discussion --as a matter of the attempt to persuade. To try to persuade is no imposition. If I persuade you that so-and-so, then you (come to) believe that so-and-so. But that is no imposition. Presumably you also worked from your own pre-existing premises or convictions. You'd have to "see the light" yourself. No one can force us to think, if we have a mind not to do so. On the other hand, if I threaten you with sanctions or offer external inducements for you to believe that so-and-so, then that is a kind of imposition on the debate or discussion.  

If someone in particular objects to the attempt to persuade to a particular religious, moral or political conviction then they may also register their objection. We can reasonably expect that background beliefs, including those associated with religion and morality will enter into the ways in which people think. Its fair to bring them into the public square insofar as they are of relevance. But the public discussion of disciplinary or public questions and problems should basically focus on the problems themselves and not on the background beliefs of those who engage in the discussion. Where the chief item of business is to proselytize, then that may be a distortion of the discussion --if it is not, e.g., already a discussion devoted to the evaluation of the conviction being proselytized.

H.G. Callaway

Thank you such a well-thought and precise comment, dear H.G. It is always a pleasure to read you.

I agree with you in that religion and morality must be taken into account as contextual components of the discussion on whatever issue is subject to research, specially if the sensitivity of the issue presents a problem as to reaching fair results. After all, such elements are part of the history of the subject matter under research. I believe this kind of contextualization would always shed light on the subject matter and would point to necessary precisions on our way to performing an "enlightening work". I understand that this is very hard to do. Being our own surveyors requires somewhat austere methods of self-vigilance, especially promoting open and multilateral discussions of the issue under study. I think we will never reach an optimal neutrality (is there a better world than this?), but it would not hurt to try.

Best regards, Lilliana

Dear Albert, thank you for such a pointed and direct comment. I agree with you. Lies come under many disguises, and I am very concerned about those called morality and religion, which often go undetected because they have become so accepted that they become invisible. Those are also lies, though they may be "sincere". Sincerity is not truth. Sincerity is not accuracy. One can be honest and be totally mistaken as to the facts or issues under discussion. I believe that is why good and useful research is so challenging.

Best regards, Lilliana

If a researcher imposes their religion or belief onto their research they have necessarily diluted it.  The topic of the research becomes that of their beliefs.  It is an inescapable fact that there is always some of a researchers beliefs in their work because they are motivated by interests and sometimes passions.  

It is incumbent on those reading the research to determine the motivation behind it and the effect that this might have on its accuracy or even truth.  It is even the case that those studying the research of others should have some degree of suspicion about what motivates the researcher.

Years of reading papers on pharmaceutical products taught me that there are many 'influences' on research findings, the most common one is money.  "Follow the money" is a sound advice to anyone reading papers financed by big business or those that happen to coincide with political or religious movements.  

The true philosophy of science is empiricism, epistemology and doxasticism.  Doxatiscism is the philosophy of doubt, healthy scepticism not unhealthy cynicism.  When we read scientific papers we should always harbour doubt about their findings.  If we are seeking confirmation, if we are reading what we want to read we are pursuing faith or belief systems, not science. 

One of the dumbest ideas in science I ever heard was the concept of 'key opinion leaders' often spouted by those with commercial interests rather than scientific ones. We were all supposed to take notice of 'key opinion leaders'.  Most people soon found out that a 'key opinion leader' had more in common with advertising and marketing than science and that many of them had financial ties to the 'science' they wrote on.

Opinions, like beliefs and faith cloud the veracity and quality of research.  Key opinion leaders work for the benefit of their bank balances, not for "the good of humanity". 

Barry, thank you for a brilliant comment. Point by point, I agree with you. Do yo mind if I use your comment in a class discussion with my graduate architectural theory and ethics students? Your comment is a gem.

Best regards, Lilliana

Barry,

RE. "follow the money". Your point is well taken. Not only are drug company or big oil sponsored findings suspect, but there are so many scientific studies in the world on a particular subject that anybody can pick and choose what supports their stance. It is not only science, but other disciplines that people can pick and choose data. Look at the "evidence" for weapons of mass destruction in the Bush's Iraq War. The analysts presented data that might have been skewed towards confirming WMD, but it was the leaders that decided to see the data as real indication of a threat. Was this a "better safe than sorry" response, or was it contrived to serve a political purpose? (rhetorical) 

It is said that for every expert witness that the prosecution team introduces in a court case, the defense can find another expert witness to refute.

Barry,

Apparently many scientists involve into a clinical trial of a medication have to sign a confidentiality contract with the pharmatical company.  Is it really science given that results that may raise some concerns for the public safety may be kept totally secret by the company.  The scientist signing this contract then cease to contribute to a open scientific process that divulge all results.  If the results are not totally made public, I do not see the whole process into which the scientist contribute as objective.  Transparency is a requirement of objectivity.  In a tribunal they request: say the truth, ALL the truth.  

If a research process is not transparent, if not ALL THE TRUTH IS PUBLISHED, then it is not a scientific process because through arbitrary and hidden selection it may be twisted totally.  

Work is worship & as such it should not be restricted to only professional researcher but all the working program of every professional & other related areas who carry out their program for day to day action .

For carrying out our program we must have moral course of ethics under an Honest ,Integrated  ,system ,Method & Approach .

For every action of our day to day line if it has a reflection of  moral codification ,ethics ,it must offer the result as per our programming plan .

With this when we talk regarding ethics & other moral codes it must have & touch of spirituality with the power of prayer & meditation to make our mind with all the time under a clean slate .

This is my personal opinion 

In theory, researchers must remove as much as possible the effects that could have their beliefs in their investigations. However, this is only a proactive demand, since in many cases the definition of the agenda of concerns and aspects in their research unfolds will be guided by the framework of the values and beliefs of the researcher, even when this attempt eliminate them. Therefore, the results of the studies are to be made available to a plural scientific community, where among several researchers with diverse beliefs and experiences limen or attempt to eliminate the potential effects of the particular beliefs of a researcher. Even with that, there will be values of a generation that pervade the work of the same and may only be reviewed by other generations. And finally, the human condition will continue to weigh on the results of all the exercises you perform at any time, so full objectivity is nothing more than a utopia.

Academic freedom means, timely publication and dissemination of study findings. It is true, the sponsors (pharma companies) might want to review the results. They may have comments to make and would like to protect their intellectual property. They have legitimate business concern. In 2003, some health economists in the United States estimated the average cost of bringing a drug to market at US$802 million. You could calculate how much it would cost in 2016. That said, the pharma companies cannot restrict the faculties to publish their actual findings. In addition, waiver of patent rights, removal of any potential personal health information (PHI) will be cross verified by the pharma companies (otherwise, they will have some liability issues). However, the resulting agreement between a faculty and a pharma sponsor cannot restrict faculties to disseminate their research findings. In addition, normally in order to support the indemnification. the sponsor are required to maintain a sufficient level of insurance. Any adverse reactions (injury or death) handled as per FDA regulations. It is highly unlikely that only the positive findings are reported, and negative findings are suppressed.

That said, federally funded projects are also has its own rules and regulations. Progress reports needs to be submitted periodically, any publication coming out of funded projects are informed to the funding agencies citing appropriate reference numbers. Results are published as it is, and not fabricated. This is evidenced by many drugs fail at the phase 4 clinical trials and do not meet the FDA standards.

A recent paper in PLOS ONE study made reference to a 'CREATOR', and about the overall rationale and findings of the study. Eventually the paper was retracted. While I am sympathetic to the authors of the study using the language (Chinese authors), I couldn't understand how come the reviewers didn't pick up such issue with the manuscript - Creator as the reason for scientific finding? 

Religious faith has no place in scientific research.

Firstly, In scientific research, we challenge and question everything. It is like, I have this great idea that no one has thought about it or you start with the the premise everyone else is dump and stupid (not in a literal sense) that your research is going to revolutionize the field and the people will live happily ever after! (pun intended).  If I were a religious person, can I selectively challenge my research questions, but unwilling to challenge religion, faith, and god?. Why challenging one thing is acceptable and another one is wrong? That is a biased, skewed, and outlier. 

Secondly, we do research and we change our opinion if we have to based on the research findings. If we do research, and if we find wrong (the result showed exactly opposite of what our hypothesis was), we change our opinion. We don't have to stick with the old thought. We learn and refine ourselves and move on. No one would challenge you why you changed your opinion. Even if someone asked that question to me, my answer is pretty simple. I have my rights to change my opinion. In science, we learn to accept the truth...sorry, I must say 'fact'. Would someone change their religious views or what is mentioned in any holy scriptures which is 1000s of years old, if they find it less appealing or unconvincing or found to be unfit or totally wrong for in the current world we live in?

I am not suggesting you to hate god, religion, or a scripture for that matter. When you enter into your lab; leave your feelings outside of the doorsteps. We have many examples to cite - many celebrated scientists are religious...equally there are many others are atheists. Being born in a particular faith or religion should not prevent anyone to do a good quality research. 

occasional cases of fabrication of findings (even for that matter, all pharma companies fabricate their clinical trial data) and religious faith or faith in scripture - Scientific approach and bringing faith, religion or god into science - they are mutually exclusive. That's a wrong way to do science.   

Finally, it is official. Religion doesn't make us more moral!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/23/it-s-official-religion-doesn-t-make-you-more-moral.html

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100334

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/who-is-more-likely-to-lie-for-money/article15024732/

Article Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Graspi...

We act morally because it is in our longer-term interests to do so.

Dear all:

In my view, the search for truth is the fundamental principle that a genuine thinker --scientist or philosopher- should follow. No other criterion -moral, religious, ideological, etc.- must interfere in the research work.

If we change our results or distort their interpretation in order to make them congruent with some moral, ethical or ideological code, we violate the most basic principles of science.This practice, however, is not as rare as we would like.

On the other hand, the subject of our research or inquiry may be motivated by a moral code or belief. For example, democracy, rather than some form of authoritarian regime, may be the focus of our research. Medical research seeks to save lives, not destroy them. 

Dear All,

Scientists work/live at society. Society’s moral influences everybody. Most scientists follow the society’s (= majority) moral. They behave like the simple. Anyway, philosophy and moral have been taught only at a few universities.     

You can now see how moral of politicians and other celebrities work and influence the common moral. Please, read the panamapapers. I am aware that these people urgently need a fine course on the meaning of ethics and moral. Another course needs to be created for the judges who will discharge these people even of the shadow of suspicion.  What is the everyday moral when these people can do anything they want to?

http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/en/

Here you can listen to and read the evergreen moral of powerful? people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYZa2sm6E40

„Le veau dor est toujours debout!          The calf of gold is still standing!

On encense sa puissance,                            One adulates his power,

On encense sa puissance,                            One adulates his power,

Dun bout du monde à lautre bout!       From one end of the world to the other end!

Pour fêter linfàme idole,                           To celebrate the infamous idol,

Rois et peuples confondu,                           Kings and the people mixed together,

Au bruit sombre des écus,                           To the somber sound of golden coins,

Danse une ronde folle                                  They dance a wild round

Autour de son piédestale,                           Around his pedestal

Autour de son piédestale,                           Around his pedestal

Et Satan conduit le bal, etc, etc.                And Satan leads the dance, etc, etc.”

Is this the moral of modern? public moral?

Dear Kenneth,

The problem is that many are not able to recognise that longer-term interests are common.

Dear All,

25 RG participants are interested in this ethics/moral thread. Does this fact represent the opinion of scientists on this issue?  Is the human an animal with ethics or not even that?

Dear Kenneth, when we act "morally" we support our ideas on past usages and customs. When we act "ethically", we focus critically on the present and the future.

Best regards, Lilliana

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ramos-Collado,

Just a short note, but I have my doubts about the distinction you propose here. You wrote:

Dear Kenneth, when we act "morally" we support our ideas on past usages and customs. When we act "ethically", we focus critically on the present and the future.

---End quotation

I don't think these things separate out so neatly. I don't suppose that the past is so easily disconnected from the present and the future. Consider, for example, America's long democratic social traditions. Surely this should enter into the process in which people in the country "focus critically on the present and the future." The tradition is a source of strength of democratic political developments, and not something that we would want to put aside. Instead, one reasonably looks at traditions as a source from which we may select and on the basis of which we can make decisions about the present and the future. 

Traditions may be mixed, of course, but basically, the role of history and tradition, is to say, look, "Here is where we have been," and given those strengths and weaknesses, "where to we go from here?" We can decide how to elaborate or develop existing traditions, in reformist style, but we ignore pre-existing values and traditions at our peril.

The distinction proposed between "morality" and "ethics" seems a rather artificial one.

H.G. Callaway

Andras, intelligence is independent of popularity. Upvotes, for example, do not reflect wisdom or truth. The people who follow a thread in RG are not necessarily knowledgeable on the issue under discussion. Most things I have read under this question not necessarily acknowledge a deep reflection on the issue, but mere opinion. I have no problem with that, as I am well aware of the unpredictability of people's comments, and many of them present side issues that are also important. Your question 

"25 RG participants are interested in this ethics/moral thread. Does this fact represent the opinion of scientists on this issue?  Is the human an animal with ethics or not even that?"

has nothing to do either with science or with how are things in RG. The managers of RG make it clear that the reputation of a researcher depends of the recognition given by others, without taking into account that those "others" may be absolutely ignorant of the subjects treated by any of us. It even intimates that publications that are not read or commented by the RG community are not adequate or good, even though everyone must publish in English in order to be readable. Publications in other languages may languish unread forever and be statistically undervalued or looked over. In other words, the very system of RG is built upon opinion, not science, even though we are expected to behave like scientists. 

I enjoy RG very much precisely because it is diverse and opinionated, but I am well aware that most of what I read here must be taken with a grain of salt. I do not ask questions to be popular, but to learn, and I clearly see, among other things, that too many men do not take into account a woman's opinion and tend to discuss among themselves even if the question was made by a woman. As you see, RG is like the rest of the world. It harbors the same prejudices, pettio principii, claims to authority, etc. But this is what we have.  And I welcome RG as an excellent forum as human relations go among scientists. A little awareness of RG foibles would be good for everyone. The most interesting questions I have seen here are usually paid very little attention. Thus, to say that my question has only 25 followers clearly agrees with RG criteria of popularity, not necessarily predicated on quality as RG does not take into account the specific knowledge or lack of it each RG participant has on each subject matter. In fact, stating that a low interest in my thread evinces its unimportance is what Aristotle calls "argumentum in personam", or "against the person". When you step out if the argument to attack the person you incur in a logical fallacy. 

Best regards, Lilliana

Dear H.G., I tend to agree with you. But aren't most categories and distinctions artificial? Maybe the importance of a category is not being "natural" but "useful". I sort of believe most tools are "man-made" and, therefore, "artificial"... unless by "artificial" you mean "contrived", "gimmicky" or something like that.

That said, I think the distinction between "morality" and "ethics" is a useful one, although there have been times in the history of philosophy when these two certainly intertwine to become almost impossible to tell apart. It is arguable that the distinction has become stronger since the early 20th century.

Thank you for calling my attention to this important issue: the artificiality of categories and distinctions. As always, I value tour comments very much.

Warm regards, Lilliana

Dear Lilliana,

''moral'' and ''ethic'' are given different definitions by different peoples.  How do you distinguish them?  All concepts are human-made but some are usefull and meaningfull and other are'nt usefull or even counter productive for certain purposes.  Concepts invented in the past which have not only been invented but used to change the world are necessary to understand the past and are thus usefull and are not artificial because unavoidable to understand the past because the past has been built by them.

Dear Liliana,

Intelligence in my contribution has not been focused at all. Participation of 25 RG members means only the concerns of a tiny minority. This is not science but a primitive statistics.  Regarding that ethics is one of the most important part of the life – one makes almost every moment an ethical decision – this participation shows a clear indifference. Of course, this is merely a casual involvement.    

Dear Louis, I agree with you. I commented about that earlier on. These terms are "epochal", they expand and contract, that's why I have mentioned more recent philosophers and recommended the use of dictionaries of philosophy.

It is always good to have in a debate!

Best regards, Lilliana

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ramos-Collado,

Many thanks for your reply. If the distinction is "useful," then the question naturally arises of what it is useful for. But I do not see that you answer this question. I tend to see the distinction between "morality" and "ethics" as functioning to separate the historical mores and temperament of a people from consideration of contemporary problems and future aims, though I am doubtful on that objective.

I thought to mention the following paper of mine which addresses this issue:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264238799_Intelligence_Community_and_Cartesian_Doubt

Intelligent community builds on its own traditions, reforming them and changing them, in greater or lessor degree, as needed on occasion. But basically, the idea is that you can't, practically, change everything at once, and that it is undesirable to try to do so. We don't write the future on a blank slate, but instead more by way of "re-editing" and improving what has gone before.

H.G. Callaway

Chapter Intelligence, Community and Cartesian Doubt

Dear Andras, I perfectly understand what you say, but that goes to my point: prejudice is so ingrained that the best well-meaning people do not see it in what they say. A tiny minority may be more intelligent, focused or documented than a majority. The contrary may also be true. That is why I usually go directly to the quality of the comments and not to their number. 

Thank you for participating in this debate. The fact that we not always agree does not mean that we are not thinking together. We are.

Best regards, Lilliana

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Here are some definitions from Webster's which may help things along at this juncture:

Full Definition of morality

plural mo·ral·i·ties

1. 1 a :  a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b :  a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson

2. 2 a :  a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural :  particular moral principles or rules of conduct

3. 3 :  conformity to ideals of right human conduct

4. 4 :  moral conduct :  virtue

Full Definition of ethics

1. 1 plural but sing or plural in constr :  the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

2. 2 a :  a set of moral principles :  a theory or system of moral values —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction b plural but sing or plural in constr :  the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group c :  a guiding philosophy d :  a consciousness of moral importance

3. 3 plural :  a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness)

--End quotation

It seems to me that the two concepts tend to blend together, though perhaps differing in emphasis in various specific contexts.

H.G. Callaway

Thank you, dear H.G. , for your very sensible comment. In my last comment I mentioned the historical change of these concepts, and I am well-aware of your position on this. The more multicultural we become, the less "traditional traditions" may be accepted by an hegemonic majority. Hegemonic traditions  are those usually respected, but I have seen multiculturalism challenge them so hard that these traditional traditions are becoming entrenched. Trump's followers are a good example of this. Multiculturalism has allowed too many non-hegemonic traditions be promoted by diverse groups. Even feminists fear a backward legislative movement from Trump's followers in Congress! There may also be new, "invented traditions" (Eric Hobsbawm's concept) concocted by the strident Right, like saying that white young men who murder African Americans in cold blood are "mentally ill" and need not suffer the full weight of the law... 

Such thing as intelligent communities that shares a tradition are a vanishing utopia. Cultural diversity is the law of the land, and that is why we have such an exacerbation of nostalgia for allegedly the "lost traditions" we had when all were similar (Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country, Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, Zygmunt Bauman's essay "Moral Blindness: The Loss of Sensitivity" in his Liquid Modernity, etc.)

Traditions are clashing against one another in countries where the communities that have these clashing traditions have citizenship or have the right to it. I do not think that these intelligent communities may build on traditions that have been merged with other traditions that for some may be old, but for most are new. Diversity demands us all to rethink the role of tradition in our lives, especially those traditions that give some communities many entitlements denied to other citizens in the same land who have other traditions.

Warms regards, Lilliana

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ramos-Collado,

Again, I appreciate your thoughtful reply, and I am not unsympathetic to it. Still, I do insist on the distinction between "multiculturalism" (which I have long basically rejected) and pluralism. I believe that pluralism as I describe it in my work is not open to the kinds of objections widely raised against "multiculturalism." The central difference is that pluralism accepts difference but places primary value on social and political integration.

Trump and his supporters are certainly a sign of the times at present. But, then, so is Senator Sanders and his followers. There are strong anti-establishment currents in American society --and elsewhere as well. (I must say, I much prefer the figure of the feisty Senator from Vermont to the ogre NY real-estate developer, turned media phenomenon.) But I believe that the Republicans will ultimately reject Trump, or the center will hold in some other fashion.

Particularly in any society so largely built up by immigration and integration of diverse sources, the theme and importance of integration cannot be avoided. But that does not mean that everyone must immediately conform to some pre-existing social paradigm or norm. It is, however, a deliberative social and educational process; and it can't be rushed to meet the demands for cheap labor, say. 

I think that any society, or American society at least, does better to build from the best of its own traditions. To do so, we have to know what they are and how they have operated in the past. 

H.G. Callaway

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VGRXCXSl9ao&from=timeline&isappinstalled=0

Pluralism is a word I seldom use, not for any particular reason save for the fact that its tradition may be too long, whereas multiculturalism is rather descriptive. I do not mind "pluralism", and I am not looking for sympathy for lack pluralism or multiculturalism , but just stating the evident impossibility on building upon traditions that are not shared by all, understood by all or allowed to all. Besides, intelligent communities are usually invited to eliminate  traditions that will not allow them to grow. Sometimes a "revolution" may be the intelligent thing to do. There was a tradition than only men could vote because they "were" the intelligent community. Suffragists had to fight a tradition that was so deep that people just could not understand just why ignorant women should be allowed to vote. Suffragism was violent because a tradition of male entitlement had to be torn out of the body politic. There are countless examples of not so intelligent communities embracing not so intelligent traditions. And, or course, there are so many traditions that just have to go, to disappear. Adaptation might no be enough if what we need is something else. 

You are absolutely right about integration. Large sectors of the US population are right now defending their intolerance to racial integration, for example. The old prejudices are coming back with a bang. It so happens that we are going backwards, salvaging old traditions that are evidently bad for humanity. Evidently, the invention of new traditions for a new society should be contemplated always. Too often the old is just that: old, obsolete, dead.

Thank you for your idea of integration. I find it essential. Bus as we say in architecture, modern interventions in historical architecture are extremely hard because of how traditions may not come together to salvage a building that can still be useful (and not just another historical museum): traditions on building materials, building techniques, traditional tools, traditional dimensions, traditional use, traditional maintenance, ornament tradition, etc. It usually happens that a contemporary intervention has to negotiate with which traditions can be honored or tweaked in order for the building not to crumble. Integration is usually very hard and slow. The very built environment bears quite a diverse testimony as to the success of integration.

I must say, though, that the integration of passive technologies of energy-saving used by the natives of the land is now being quite successful in impacting the way we are building homes in many parts of the world, especially in the United States, where the vernacular is coming back as a "best method". But native Americans are not necessary considered the ones that gave us traditions in the sense you speak of those belonging to the "intelligent community", dear H. G. The advantage native Americans have over us is that they knew the land and used it almost unchanged. Europeans came and used European techniques, tools and ideas of what a house was or should have been. These traditions of the intelligent European community are being questioned and even Obama has created a committee on the study of vernacular passive technologies vis à vis the energy crisis. Maybe those older traditions rejected by the European newcomers were better and cheaper, and more friendly to the incredibly beautiful landscape of the United States... Since there was no integration between these two intelligent communities, we lost this passive technologies for centuries. Now they might become new toys for hipsters who may claim to be the most intelligent community of all. 

Which would be the most intelligent community of all, with the best traditions and the stronger will to adapt them to new circumstances and contexts?

Perplexed, Lilliana

The key word here is "impose."  There is no place for compromising one's otherwise objective findings.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ramos-Collado,

It may be argued, of course, that there is better and worse in our traditions and even better and worse of traditions. But that suggest a very large-scale discussion, indeed. As a practical matter, everyone starts where they are; it is unreasonable to ask participants in a discussion to surrender their existing values as a condition of entering a discussion. 

Pluralism is a very rich historical tradition of American society--dating from William James and before. Multiculturalism, I regard as a recent variation with a leftward oriented U.K, with its 4 ethnically defined and geographically separate sub-polities as the ancestral model. It has been rejected by just about every European country, though it lives on, in a sense, as the multi-cultural character of Europe-as-a-whole. Whatever its success there, it seems not an appropriate model of U.S society. The U.S. states are not officially defined in terms of any cultural peculiarities they may have, and the states must respect the "rights and privileges" of U.S. citizens, by the 14th amendment. People should be encouraged toward greater integration though not compelled to it. In any case, the states can not constitutionally compel cultural segregation.

I believe the native American populations would do much better if we abolished the reservation system and the people were better integrated with the rest of us. Frankly, the reservation system reminds me of apartheid.Certainly, we would not want to expand cultural-geographical separations of he American population. The contemporary divisiveness is already taxing the political competency of the country.

H.G. Callaway 

Dear H.G., I am well aware that it is unreasonable to ask participants this, but I have not asked for anything like that. I am giving examples that are interesting in themselves and really work in the context "intelligent communities" and their traditions. My examples question the harmony you propose between the intelligent communities and their traditions. I like non-traditional examples.

Best regards, Lilliana