03-29-2006, 10:58 AM
Quote: 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]
Theory of Relativity has been "proven" by experiments. If you can't prove or falsify it, it's not science, and no reason to protect it on a UN level.
Quote: 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]
There Is Always A Loophole, I fear. I could limit it to UN human rights, of course, but it wouldn't be as effective in general.
Quote: 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]
They can be damaging, but the research isn't aimed at damaging. Scientists don't think how they can create a 1000 kilo block of steel to kill pedestrians, they want to get people from A to B in less time.
Quote: 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?[/quote]
It doesn't need to be punished. It isn't science, so it isn't protected. Quite simple. Science is about reproducable facts, verifiable theories. As soon as whatever deity enters the stage, the reasoning becomes circular, and science is out of the door. No progress can be made based on religion, because with religion, everything is already explained. And religion is already protected by the UN anyway.
The difference between evolution and ID is that evolution is based on theories, observations, and that can all be reproduced and falsified by other scientists. But it's impossible to falsify a god, because you can never prove the existence or non-existence of a god. That's all very nice, but it's not science.
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]
Theory of Relativity has been "proven" by experiments. If you can't prove or falsify it, it's not science, and no reason to protect it on a UN level.
Quote: 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]
There Is Always A Loophole, I fear. I could limit it to UN human rights, of course, but it wouldn't be as effective in general.
Quote: 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]
They can be damaging, but the research isn't aimed at damaging. Scientists don't think how they can create a 1000 kilo block of steel to kill pedestrians, they want to get people from A to B in less time.
Quote: 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?[/quote]
It doesn't need to be punished. It isn't science, so it isn't protected. Quite simple. Science is about reproducable facts, verifiable theories. As soon as whatever deity enters the stage, the reasoning becomes circular, and science is out of the door. No progress can be made based on religion, because with religion, everything is already explained. And religion is already protected by the UN anyway.
The difference between evolution and ID is that evolution is based on theories, observations, and that can all be reproduced and falsified by other scientists. But it's impossible to falsify a god, because you can never prove the existence or non-existence of a god. That's all very nice, but it's not science.