I don't want to step on too many toes, but I have to make mention of the error in the particular arrogance among the scientific community that their work qualifies them to reform other industries and facets of the human existence. Obviously the work of scientists and engineers is vital, and worthy of credit and praise, but I would not trust even the smartest scientists and engineers I know to handle the foreign policy of a nation, for example. Or tell me how to live my life, ethically or morally. I'm saying this from the perspective of an engineer, to my credit--I'm well aware of the talent and brilliance in the community. I just think it's dangerous to worship the altar of science to solve all of our problems.
"Or tell me how to live my life, ethically or morally"
Is this really the duty of politicians though? Certainly there's been a lot of discourse about this in the current landscape, especially from those attempting to impart their personal ethics and morals on the political landscape, but this shouldn't be the duty of the government, but the duty of individuals (chiefly parents) as well as that of a society as a whole. Government shouldn't have any business in what is ethical or moral but in what is legal (which is sometimes, but not always a reflection of ethics and morals).
Sure, I agree, I wasn't trying to say that it's the politician's job...that line was meant to represent the ethical sphere of a human's existence, another example of a facet in which I don't think a scientist necessarily should be trusted to lead, at least not solely based on their occupation/skill set related to their scientific work. That's all I meant.
> Government shouldn't have any business in what is ethical or moral but in what is legal
"Enforcement" is the use of force to assert an ethical and moral position. "Legal Enforcement" is the monopolistic use of force to assert an ethical and moral position. It's not possible to enforce "what is legal" on others without asserting a morality.
I think it's more dangerous to worship irrationality. Frankly, I don't care if someone is a "scientist" or not, only that their method of truth discovery follows the scientific method and philosophy. There is no other methodology that has consistently increased our knowledge base over time.
Speaking of trust, I've been at the mercy of unscientific and irrational politicians my whole life whom I do not trust. I do not trust you because you are a "family man", or a "common man" or because you are "spiritual." In fact, if you are spiritual or religious, I trust you less by the fact that you subscribe to a non-rational philosophy.
Finally, I won't pretend to want to avoid stepping on toes. I'm sure the above will step on toes.
edit: and before someone accuses me of having no morals or ethics, I can assure you that I do. If I were forced to join an organisation, I suppose I'd have to join the secular humanists.
