[alancalverd]

Fortunately, applied biology, whether as medicine or agriculture, has nothing to do with philosophy. It is always about  maximising something: health, profit, yield, whatever. Philosophy is about vanity.

Now and again we eliminate a species. Pity about the dodo, but nobody wept for smallpox.

The object of a company is to maximise the financial yield to its shareholders. There may be legal and ethical constraints on how it does so, but the directors can be disbarred and prosecuted for failing in their primary duty. Sadly, not enough shareholders seem to know this, and it is usually only small business directors who get disbarred: the top executives of Carillion, Thomas Cook, and just about every bank you have heard of, can rob their clients, suppliers and shareholders blind as long as they lend the occasional yacht to a politician.   

[cleanair (OP)]

Philosophy is about vanity.

According to Cambridge Dictionary:

the search for knowledge and truth

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english-german/philosophy

It would imply that scientists practice philosophy.

The object of a company is to maximise the financial yield to its shareholders. There may be legal and ethical constraints on how it does so, but the directors can be disbarred and prosecuted for failing in their primary duty. Sadly, not enough shareholders seem to know this, and it is usually only small business directors who get disbarred: the top executives of Carillion, Thomas Cook, and just about every bank you have heard of, can rob their clients, suppliers and shareholders blind as long as they lend the occasional yacht to a politician.   

That's a perspective on ethical human behavior in relation to companies, however, what if the future of humanity is at stake? Are company leaders to be held accountable, or humanity?

In the case of a synthetic biology revolution, who let's the companies on the loose? (if it were to be the case, it is the question in this topic).

If a pharmaceutical company withholds information about potentially fatal side effects to maximize profits, are individual company leaders at fault or might it be the underlying principle that humans have allowed a company to make money on disease and thereby created an incentive (a reward system) to promote disease?

Chronically ill is the most profitable situation for a pharmaceutical company. Healing a disease generates the most money, not "having cured" or "prevented a disease from ever occurring".

Who is responsible?

It has been the reason to start this topic, to learn if / how philosophy and ethical thinking may play a role in guiding correct practices in the interest of humanity. In the case of synthetic biology, a lot is at stake.

[alancalverd]

You may describe philosophy as a search for knowledge and truth. That is indeed vanity. Science is about the acquisition of knowledge, and most scientists avoid the use of "truth", preferring "repeatability" as more in line with our requisite humility in the face of observation.

As an occasional company director, I know exactly what I am required by law to do, thanks. It is arguable that the greatest advances  in human health and happiness came about by capitalists organising limited companies to make stuff like railways and penicillin (though sewage, the greatest boon to mankind, seems to be a matter of public finance building the infrastructure then handing over the operating profit to private speculators). The best definition of industry I ever heard was "organising men, machines, materials and money, to make things that people want", and if you are going to speculate on a revolutionary product, it's best to do it with private capital.

General, established ethics may be encapsulated in the law of the land, and where an endeavour involves subjecting humans to novel physical and chemical challenges, most civilised countries require prior scrutiny by specialist ethical committees. Sadly, although there are voluntary censorship codes within the industry, the general ethics of "computer games" and "antisocial media" escapes scrutiny and vast numbers of human lives are wasted or damaged thereby. But it makes an untaxable profit, so that's OK.

The future of humanity is bleak. Rational thought is doomed, because religion is easier and AK47s are cheap.

[cleanair (OP)]

You may describe philosophy as a search for knowledge and truth. That is indeed vanity. Science is about the acquisition of knowledge, and most scientists avoid the use of "truth", preferring "repeatability" as more in line with our requisite humility in the face of observation.

Is it not that formulating a perspective on how science ought to function is called philosophy?

Philosophy lays at the basis of science. First philosophy, then science. (human wisdom: think before you act).

As an occasional company director, I know exactly what I am required by law to do, thanks. It is arguable that the greatest advances  in human health and happiness came about by capitalists organising limited companies to make stuff like railways and penicillin (though sewage, the greatest boon to mankind, seems to be a matter of public finance building the infrastructure then handing over the operating profit to private speculators). The best definition of industry I ever heard was "organising men, machines, materials and money, to make things that people want", and if you are going to speculate on a revolutionary product, it's best to do it with private capital.

General, established ethics may be encapsulated in the law of the land, and where an endeavour involves subjecting humans to novel physical and chemical challenges, most civilised countries require prior scrutiny by specialist ethical committees. Sadly, although there are voluntary censorship codes within the industry, the general ethics of "computer games" and "antisocial media" escapes scrutiny and vast numbers of human lives are wasted or damaged thereby. But it makes an untaxable profit, so that's OK.

You appear to be talking about innocent SMB's. But what about "Big Business"?

There is a consolidating process ongoing. Increasingly, global revenue and power goes to a smaller amount of big companies. This isn't just an idea by a 99% movement. It is communicated as a major problem by business professors.

Rethinking efficiency
Business thinkers have steadfastly regarded the elimination of waste as management’s holy grail. but what if the negative effects from the pursuit of efficiency eclipse the rewards?

The Growing Power of the Few
Since 1997 a strong majority of industries in the United States have become more concentrated. Many are now what economists consider “highly concentrated.” This tends to correlate with low levels of competition, high consumer prices, and high profit margins.

Source: https://hbr.org/2019/01/rethinking-efficiency

If "Big Business" initiates a synthetic biology revolution for short term financial interest (e.g. in an attempt to maintain high growth as a big business) it can have profound implications for nature.

Besides the potential for disaster and harm, would it serve humanity?

Note: the topic started with a question whether ethical thinking / philosophy is at the foundation of the synthetic biology revolution. The question is not yet answered. The report by The Economist suggested that synthetic biology is unguided and primarily driven by market (money).

[alancalverd]

Philosophers always pretend that their work is important and fundamental. It isn't even consistent. You can't build science on a rickety, shifting, arbitrary foundation. It is arguable that Judaeo-Christianity catalysed the development of science by insisting that there is a rational plan to the universe, but we left that idea behind a long time ago because there is no evidence for it.

Obviously, anyone with enough money is exempt from the law. 'Twas always thus. And anyone with enough votes is exempt from ethics, likewise.

The concentration of capital is as inevitable as the accretion of space dust into planets.

I have pointed out earlier the potential disaster from anyone producing a sterile, high yield rice. That's all it takes to dominate the world without firing a shot.

[cleanair (OP)]

Philosophers always pretend that their work is important and fundamental. It isn't even consistent. You can't build science on a rickety, shifting, arbitrary foundation. It is arguable that Judaeo-Christianity catalysed the development of science by insisting that there is a rational plan to the universe, but we left that idea behind a long time ago because there is no evidence for it.

Science may not be able to provide some answers.

Science is looking back in time. It is an attempt to define.

Cambridge Dictionary: (knowledge from) the careful study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by watching, measuring, and doing experiments, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities:

Knowledge resides within a historical context. Before knowledge is present, it requires actions to have taken place: observing, testing and describing (i.e. defining) the results. The outcome of such is history.

If nature isn't fixed (see topic Laws of physics may change across the universe) that has implications. History and thus science may not be valid in a different time or region of the Universe. And thus, it may be that besides learning from the past, i.e. science, something else is needed. It could be philosophy: thinking.

What is the cause that religions could have existed? Why do even scientists and highly intelligent people tend to stubbornly hold on to dogma's?

Philosophy may be vital for progress in the future.

[alancalverd]

Science may not be able to provide some answers.

You can always ask an absurd question, like "why are we here?" You can use science to determine how living things work, but the presumption of a prior purpose is not based on observation.

[cleanair (OP)]

presumption of a prior purpose is not based on observation.

If the Universe is to be considered infinite, how would humans explore across the boundaries of what can be observed?

Using a dogma and waiting for the next paradigm shift is one way, but how would that scale when investigating an infinite Universe? Philosophy may provide a solution to figuratively speaking try thousands of dogmas in the same time.

[cleanair (OP)]

the presumption of a prior purpose is not based on observation.

That may be incorrect according to recent discoveries that indicate that the Universe may be conscious.

Panpsychism

This sounds like easily-dismissible bunkum, but as traditional attempts to explain consciousness continue to fail, the “panpsychist” view is increasingly being taken seriously by credible philosophers, neuroscientists, and physicists, including figures such as neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose.

Philosophers at NYU, home to one of the leading philosophy-of-mind departments, have made panpsychism a feature of serious study. There have been several credible academic books on the subject in recent years, and popular articles taking panpsychism seriously.

https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-everything-from-spoons-to-stones-are-conscious-is-gaining-academic-credibility/

Is the Universe a conscious mind?

Cosmopsychism might seem crazy, but it provides a robust explanatory model for how the Universe became fine-tuned for life.

It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics – for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron – must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have. It is therefore incredibly unlikely that a universe like ours would have the kind of numbers compatible with the existence of life. But, against all the odds, our Universe does.

Example: The strong nuclear force has a value of 0.007. If that value had been 0.006 or 0.008 life would not have been possible

https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-explains-why-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-for-life

Early philosophers have considered the Universe to be moved by mind. It has been explored in Aristotle's De Anima.

https://books.google.nl/books?id=MSE9AAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA25&ots=DAr09ws4nI&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q&f=false

Imagine: thousands of years ago philosophy may have explored concepts that only today are becoming visible in science. Philosophy can walk ahead in a way that may enable to get results faster than for example a religion or dogma could provide.

[alancalverd]

Philosophy may provide a solution

Wrong. It never has. But it has obstructed the march of science and the growth of understanding.

[alancalverd]

The strong nuclear force has a value of 0.007. If that value had been 0.006 or 0.008 life would not have been possible

But it is .007, so life is inevitable. Incidentally, .007 of what units?

[cleanair (OP)]

Wrong. It never has. But it has obstructed the march of science and the growth of understanding.

I do not agree and I believe that such an attitude towards philosophy (a search for truth by thinking) could lead to stubborn defense of dogmas. In order to optimally serve the search for the truth, being open to various perspectives that extend beyond the status quo, or beyond what is predictable with science, may be essential.

The strong nuclear force has a value of 0.007. If that value had been 0.006 or 0.008 life would not have been possible

But it is .007, so life is inevitable. Incidentally, .007 of what units?

I cited the text from https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-explains-why-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-for-life It does not mention a unit.

The Universe may be conscious, say prominent scientists

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmos-quantum-and-consciousness-is-science-doomed-to-leave-some-questions-unanswered/

With regard to the topic: when fundamental questions about nature and the Universe are unanswered, would it be wise to pursue a human perspective based synthetic biology revolution? Based on the cited articles it can be stated that the perspective of humans (the current state of science) could be flawed.

A (unguided) genetic engineering revolution in nature could have a profound impact on the fundament that makes human life possible. As mentioned by the report in The Economist, genetic engineered creatures already amount for about 2% of the GDP of USA. It is 400 billion USD in revenue per year and those businesses will pursue growth.

Therefor I simply intended to pose the question: are the ideas behind the practice well thought out or is it purely driven by market (money)? If the latter, what are the perspectives on such by scientists / people with interest in zoology / plant science.

Until now the question has remained unanswered.

If the Universe is conscious then nature may serve a purpose that reaches beyond what humans could possibly foresee because it reaches into the future.

Science is looking back in time. Using science as a guiding principle for evolution would be based on the idea/belief in uniformitarianism. Such a concept may have downsides that could damage or weaken human evolution.

Philosophy can test whether scientific beliefs / ideas or methodologies are plausible, and/or if they remain so upon new developments / discoveries. Philosophy can investigate questions that span multiple fields and connect the dots to find valuable insights that could be essential for determining what is "good" for the future of humans.

In the same time philosophy can be responsible. It will listen to scientists and anything they pose can be challenged with no sort of dogmatic resistance. The rickety nature of philosophy that you mentioned could also be a quality for flexibility and the prevention of dogma's. Instead of holding on to ideas, it can be changed if you can convince that it should.

[Kryptid]

a search for truth by thinking

How does one test to see if their thinking is accurate?

[cleanair (OP)]

How does one test to see if their thinking is accurate?

It's their profession to discover methods. There is actually a field called philosophy of science. The scientific method is a product, it's a philosophy for science.

https://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/

[alancalverd]

 

There is actually a field called philosophy of science. The scientific method is a product, it's a philosophy for science.

No it isn't! It's a retrospective discipline, trying to extract something that philosophers consider important from what scientists have done (not what scientists think - scientific writing is usually intellectually dishonest!). Science is a process, not a philosophy. Even the simplest linguistics confirms this: we "do" science, nobody "does" philosophy.

a search for truth by thinking

Please define truth. It's impossible to find something if you don't know what you are looking for - at best, you might trip over it without noticing!

stubborn defense of dogmas.

Worth looking at the Inquisition's defence of Aristotelian philosophy and papal dogma in the face of Galileo's simple thought experiments. The whole point of science is to question anything that might smell of dogma (or bullshit).

[alancalverd]

I cited the text from https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-explains-why-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-for-life It does not mention a unit.

Then it is bullshit, not science. One acquires a nose for these things.

genetic engineered creatures already amount for about 2% of the GDP of USA.

or 100% of the Danish bacon market, or Crufts. The only difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering is speed and accuracy.

[cleanair (OP)]

Science is a process, not a philosophy. Even the simplest linguistics confirms this: we "do" science, nobody "does" philosophy.

The idea that science is a process that can operate independently from philosophical concept is based on a belief in uniformitarianism.

My other topic with regard to evidence that the laws of physics can change in time is an example that the assumption of uniformitarianism could be incorrect.

How would science continue without a belief in uniformitarianism to legitimize a blind practice?

The human wisdom "think before you act" may be applicable. Science "does" and gets results but although humans started figuratively speaking out of a cave and any progress was almost by definition of value, it may be that ultimately thinking about what is actually done may become essential.

With regard to the scientific method being a product of philosophy. It was invented by philosopher Francis Bacon. It was 'created' using philosophy.

The practice of investigating and evaluating the history of science serves as a foundation for creating new ideas or to enhance practices of science. If something similar as the scientific method is ever created, it would be based on valid research of science's history.

a search for truth by thinking

Please define truth. It's impossible to find something if you don't know what you are looking for - at best, you might trip over it without noticing!

I cannot answer that question. The Cambridge dictionary describes it as following:

the search for knowledge and truth, especially about the nature of man and his behaviour/behavior and beliefs

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english-german/philosophy

It is a interesting question of which the meaning may differ based on context. In that case thinking about the meaning of truth before science is practiced may be essential for accurate results (or for efficiency if you would calculate in brute force attempts to get results).

stubborn defense of dogmas.

Worth looking at the Inquisition's defence of Aristotelian philosophy and papal dogma in the face of Galileo's simple thought experiments. The whole point of science is to question anything that might smell of dogma (or bullshit).

Your defence for the scientific method (by stating that it is to be considered valid as a definition) is essentially comparable with any other defence that abuses philosophy for an application.

Philosophy is not a religion. It is a search for, among other things, proper human behaviour, such as science. The creation of the scientific method is an example. That you practice it however, would be a belief in it.

[alancalverd]

Well, you have redefined philosophy several times in the above, but that is of no consequence.

Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe,  hypothesise, test, repeat. There's no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it's what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else.

I haven't defended the scientific method by stating that it is "valid as a definition". I merely stated what it is. I don't need to defend cricket, but I can define it as "the game in which eleven players etc...…" You may use science, you may enjoy cricket, but they don't need defending.

I think you will find the scientific method to be a lot older than Francis Bacon. He was certainly a noted experimentalist, a perceptive observer, and an excellent writer, but the development of the bow and arrow, or the boomerang, can be traced to much earlier and more widespread scientific processes. And as I reported elsewhere, I have seen a gorilla investigate gravitation scientifically without having read Bacon. Interestingly, Wikipedia credits both Bacon and Galileo with having invented the scientific method. Fact is that historians, biographers and philosophers often fall into the soft trap of ascribing invention to the earliest author they have read, which implies that Moses invented language, which is obviously untrue - but I'm using the scientific method here, so you won't believe me.

I can't accept your excuse for not defining truth. If you use a word to denote what you are looking for, you must be able to describe its characteristics sufficiently that a person "skilled in the art" would recognise it when he finds it. If philosophers spend their days looking for something that cannot be defined, or whose definition can vary arbitrarily, they are by definition wasting their lives - and mine, if I  listen to them!

[cleanair (OP)]

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 - We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science in relation to philosophy.

The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime - which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet.  Here also the instinct of the populace cries, "Freedom from all masters!"  and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose "hand-maid" it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the "master" - what am I saying!  to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.

According to him, when practicing science independently, scientists are essentially fulfilling the role of a philosopher. Logically, that would be based on a belief or dogma (uniformitarianism) that legitimizes autonomous application of science (i.e. without further thinking about whether it is actually 'good' what is being done).

Recent developments (e.g. the evidence that nature may change in time) may show that such a belief is not justified.

Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe,  hypothesise, test, repeat. There's no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it's what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else.

You mention value. Who determines that value? In relation to what is that value defined?

I haven't defended the scientific method by stating that it is "valid as a definition". I merely stated what it is. I don't need to defend cricket, but I can define it as "the game in which eleven players etc...…" You may use science, you may enjoy cricket, but they don't need defending.

I think you will find the scientific method to be a lot older than Francis Bacon. He was certainly a noted experimentalist, a perceptive observer, and an excellent writer, but the development of the bow and arrow, or the boomerang, can be traced to much earlier and more widespread scientific processes.

Discovery of utility or learning is not the same as science when following your description of a process that can be compared with rules of a game or instructions on a shampoo bottle, as a distinguishing factor.

I can't accept your excuse for not defining truth. If you use a word to denote what you are looking for, you must be able to describe its characteristics sufficiently that a person "skilled in the art" would recognise it when he finds it. If philosophers spend their days looking for something that cannot be defined, or whose definition can vary arbitrarily, they are by definition wasting their lives - and mine, if I  listen to them!

Words can have a different meaning depending on the context. As such, it may require to involve matters that range from time, perspectives, available knowledge and more to be able to describe a concept of "truth".

When nature can change in time, a definition of truth in physics based on scientific observations could change in time.

Truth could be an agreement. Truth could be based on a belief in the scientific method and uniformitarianism (a religion or dogma). Truth could be a taste or a emotion. Truth could be fashion.

If the Universe is to be considered infinite then any concept of truth would necessarily be dependent on a perceived state of nature in time. It would be by definition a perception on history. Whether meaning is to be derived from that history, that would be dependent on the context and could change in time.

[alancalverd]

I repeat, if you can't define truth, you can't suggest that science (or philosophy - I forget which) is a search for truth. No sane man would set out on a search without knowing how he would recognise his goal when he found it, and most of the scientists I know are sane.

Life is a lot simpler if you stick to the definition of scientific knowledge as the residue of testable hypotheses that have not been disproved. This allows for the requisite flexibility in the face of new discoveries and does not presume any constancy in nature.

I do occasionally drink with sinners. One of my favorite philosopher friends presented his opus vitarum lecture to our physics department. His thesis was that the theory of relativity created moral panic and intellectual Armageddon among physicists, with tortured minds immolating themselves like characters in Hieronymus Bosch's vision of Hell as their world turned inside out. At the end of a couple of hours of stony silence, a physics lecturer said "No. If v << c then it all degenerates to newtonian physics, and as v → c it explains a number of observed anomalies. Relativity is a solution, not a problem."   

You mention value. Who determines that value?

The customer, of course. At one end, we can use the scientific method to cure disease or avert a disaster; at the other, folk are intrigued or entertained in a planetarium. Cash or applause are always welcome.