[Groot Gouda]

Because a repeal of #2 seems to have reached quorum, I'm dragging out my old resolution:

Freedom of Science

Freedom of Science

A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.


Category: Education and Creativity


Area of Effect: Educational


Proposed by: Groot Gouda

Description: The NationStates United Nations,

RECALLING the repealed Resolution #2: Scientific Freedom,

NOTING WITH REGRET the lack of concrete protection this resolution provides for scientists as noted in the repeal,

ALSO NOTING that Resolution #2 poorly defined science and scientists worthy of protection,

CONSIDERING the advantages of greater scientific freedom, such as economic prosperity, greater insight into how the world works, as well as possible advances in medical science,

ACKNOWLEDGING the value of religion, which however should be clearly separate from science,

1. AFFIRMS the Freedom of Science as a fundamental right across UN member nations,

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,

3. MANDATES that no scientist may be prosecuted for conducting scientific research, publishing scientific research or reading scientific publications, nor unreasonably restricted in any other way,

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;
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);
c. depends on "divine beings" as explanations for phenomena;
d. contains plagiarized material or material which by contract was not (yet) to be published;

5. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that through science, the lives of UN citizens will improve in the centuries to come.

[Federalist]

Hasn't there already been a resolution that covered this topic.

[Jonquiere-Tadoussac]

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.

[Groot Gouda]

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.

[Jonquiere-Tadoussac]

Groot GoudaMar 29 2006, 01:58 AM 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]
I just think you're looking at a very narrow part of science; that which is most accepted in today's mainstream, yes, but narrow nonetheless. If you look at the history of science, empiricism and falsification are fairly new ways of proving things (and not universally accepted). I understand your point here, but I just don't think falsification is the only way to show something is science. Of course, I don't have a good definition of what else classifies as science...

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]What about those cases where something isn't aimed at being damaging, but its damaging effects will be greater than its useful ones? Something like genetically modified food that could reasonably be expected to kill other plants along the way, or destroy pest populations that are integral parts of the ecosystem.... damaging other animals may not be the aim, but it would be the effect. For that matter, what about pesticides, where a) the greater harm is subjective, depending on whether you are an environmentalist or an industrialist, or b) where the pests may cause equal damage as the pesticide, just in a different area (i.e. either the crops or the ecosystem is damaged)

Quote: It doesn't need to be punished. It isn't science, so it isn't protected. Quite simple...And religion is already protected by the UN anyway.[/quote]
Fair enough. That wasn't the way I was reading it, but I can understand your intentions here. I can just see some others (especially n00bs/semi-n00bs) attacking this in the same way, so I wanted to bring it up here.

Quote: 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.[/quote]
This is debatable... I haven't seen any scientist able to reproduce evolution except with such things as algorithms, and the other evidence can be classified as circumstantial. Evolution as it stands is hard to falsify because of the way the theory is structured, and there is not complete evidence of all the necessary links yet. I agree that ID cannot be falsified either, but under your criteria, I don't think evolution is a science, either.

[Grosseschnauzer]

I suspect part of the problem that this proposal is going to face is the terminology of "Freedom of Science." What I suspect you are really trying to protect is the freedom of scientific research and inquiry. The results of research could be use for good or ill, but the research and inquiry itself, unless it directly violates a well accepted right of the individual (such as not being subjected to torture or abuse) should be protected. An RL example was the Manhattan Project during World War II where some researchers refused to participate after it became clear that atomic energy could be developed as used as a weapon; these scientists wrote a famous letter to Franklin Delano Roosevelt protesting further research and development.

I suspect the terminology of "Freedom of Science" is what bothers me the most about this language.

[Groot Gouda]

Quote: Groot GoudaMar 29 2006, 01:58 AM 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]
I just think you're looking at a very narrow part of science; that which is most accepted in today's mainstream, yes, but narrow nonetheless. If you look at the history of science, empiricism and falsification are fairly new ways of proving things (and not universally accepted). I understand your point here, but I just don't think falsification is the only way to show something is science. Of course, I don't have a good definition of what else classifies as science... [/quote]

If new ways to conduct science are discovered, we'll see about that then and there. What I care about is that conducting science is protected, and if people come up with a better definition, it's in. If not, I'll leave it as it is.

Quote: What about those cases where something isn't aimed at being damaging, but its damaging effects will be greater than its useful ones?  Something like genetically modified food that could reasonably be expected to kill other plants along the way, or destroy pest populations that are integral parts of the ecosystem.... [/quote]

You don't know until you've researched. That's why we need to protect science

Quote: Quote: 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.[/quote]
This is debatable...[/quote]

That's why it's science! If it isn't debatable, there's no change, no progress.

Quote: I haven't seen any scientist able to reproduce evolution except with such things as algorithms, and the other evidence can be classified as circumstantial.  Evolution as it stands is hard to falsify because of the way the theory is structured, and there is not complete evidence of all the necessary links yet.  I agree that ID cannot be falsified either, but under your criteria, I don't think evolution is a science, either.[/quote]

Evolution is science. Numerous observations have been made, a theory has been constructed, and for 150 years things have been thrown at it. The theory is still in place, modified at places perhaps to accomodate new observations, new insights, but it's still the best explanation science can give for what happens.

If great new insights come along, it can change. If observations are made that don't match the theory, it can be changed. So it's a great example of science. It can be falsified, it just hasn't been done yet.

With ID, we can be sure that it can never be falsified, that whatever observation is done, the basic idea that there's a designer will stay. It takes a result and searches for an explanation, instead of observing and finding an explanation. That's a fundamental difference.

And remember that evolution is still a theory. That's how science works. It isn't true. Science is prepared to change its opinion with new facts, and always tries to explain what happens with current knowledge. Some might treat it as a fundamental truth, but that's not science. We'll probably never find The Truth. Or, as Terry Pratchett said: "It's very hard to explain quantum in a language invented to tell other monkeys where to find ripe fruit."

[Jonquiere-Tadoussac]

Sorry to hijack this whole thing into an evolution debate. I still don't agree, but that's not going to be solved here. I think GS has a good point, though, and that if we were looking more at "Freedom of research and inquiry", all the objections I presented about the use of the science would go away.

[Stolidia]

OOC:

Overall, this is good. A technical issue... Clause 4d is too narrow, I think:

d. contains plagiarized material or material which by contract was not (yet) to be published;

Suggest:

d. contains plagiarized material or material the publication of which is restricted by contract or as a condition of employment;

Many scientists work for government agencies or corporations with legitimate reasons (e.g., national security, trade secrets) where there is no "contract" involved. Adding "condition of employment" would cover those cases.

[Jonquiere-Tadoussac]

This doesn't really argue anything in relation to this resolution, but tale a look at some interesting science. Seems prayer has no effect on heart bypass patients...

[Keeslandia]

Groot, we love this resolution and believe it to be one most vital and important things the UN can ever do. The Empire supports it wholeheartedly and commends you on a tremendous job.