03-28-2006, 07:52 PM
May be old to you, but it's new to me 
(I can just see the flames starting to flare up over this...
)
A few picky issues;
Quote: 2. DEFINES science as the system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methods, i.e. methodically trying to falsify hypotheses based on objective experimenting which can be reproduced,[/quote]
This is only one form of science, if the most generally accepted today. There are other, less empirical forms, as well as purely theoretical forms which are very hard to prove (Theory of Relativity?)
Quote: 4. AUTHORIZES individual nations to exempt scientific research from the general UN protection granted in clause 3 that:
a. is acquired through methods that violate human or animal rights according to UN or national legislation;[/quote]
I know this needs to be included to prevent abuses of people for research, which is the single biggest issue, but I see a huge loophole here. Say a religious country doesn't like free science, so they legislate a human right for persons to never have science intrude on their religious beliefs... then if the scientist acquires knowledge that violates these, they prosecute them. I know it says "through methods", but then they say that these methods are in violation to human right to clean conscience, or some other BS.
Quote: b. is aimed at offensive warfare or otherwise damaging persons, animals or the environment (except where it is the only way greater damage can be prevented);[/quote]
Television, computers, automobiles could all be classified as damaging persons without preventing greater damage. Yes, these are all inventions, but they are the subject of science and had science bring them about. Besides, there is a fine line between science and invention... but the latter isn't at issue here.
Quote: c. depends on "divine beings" as explanations for phenomena;[/quote]
Why must states be able to punish this? If it's just one theory among many, then why does it need to be punished? How does it harm anyone? Besides, in the end, how can it be proven that some form of "divine beings" (which in some religions include aliens that could really be responsible for everything) wasn't responsible for things. Why is intelligent design any less ridiculous than evolution?
I'm not saying that religious arguments should be accepted (I don't accept them), but that they should not be punishable. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your intention here, though, so correct me if I've entirely missed the point of this item.
These are really small points, though. The proposal as it stands isn't bad. This is far better than #2.
(I can just see the flames starting to flare up over this...
)A few picky issues;
Quote: 2. DEFINES science as the system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methods, i.e. methodically trying to falsify hypotheses based on objective experimenting which can be reproduced,[/quote]
This is only one form of science, if the most generally accepted today. There are other, less empirical forms, as well as purely theoretical forms which are very hard to prove (Theory of Relativity?)
Quote: 4. AUTHORIZES individual nations to exempt scientific research from the general UN protection granted in clause 3 that:
a. is acquired through methods that violate human or animal rights according to UN or national legislation;[/quote]
I know this needs to be included to prevent abuses of people for research, which is the single biggest issue, but I see a huge loophole here. Say a religious country doesn't like free science, so they legislate a human right for persons to never have science intrude on their religious beliefs... then if the scientist acquires knowledge that violates these, they prosecute them. I know it says "through methods", but then they say that these methods are in violation to human right to clean conscience, or some other BS.
Quote: b. is aimed at offensive warfare or otherwise damaging persons, animals or the environment (except where it is the only way greater damage can be prevented);[/quote]
Television, computers, automobiles could all be classified as damaging persons without preventing greater damage. Yes, these are all inventions, but they are the subject of science and had science bring them about. Besides, there is a fine line between science and invention... but the latter isn't at issue here.
Quote: c. depends on "divine beings" as explanations for phenomena;[/quote]
Why must states be able to punish this? If it's just one theory among many, then why does it need to be punished? How does it harm anyone? Besides, in the end, how can it be proven that some form of "divine beings" (which in some religions include aliens that could really be responsible for everything) wasn't responsible for things. Why is intelligent design any less ridiculous than evolution?
I'm not saying that religious arguments should be accepted (I don't accept them), but that they should not be punishable. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your intention here, though, so correct me if I've entirely missed the point of this item.
These are really small points, though. The proposal as it stands isn't bad. This is far better than #2.