Hello,
Throughout the history Science has always been a body of knowledge inside the gathering of knowledge bodies that were created and maintained by human species. However, it hasn't always bore the name "Science" on it and hasn't always been carried out with "Scientific Method."
The ancient science was a mixture of what we nowadays call science and what we nowadays call religion and many other bodies of knowledge that are now considered obviously distinct. As a consequence, the key to the development of the part of that mixture which is now called science was the development of the whole mixture. If the mixture by its nature hindered development then the science living inside didn't advance despite its progressive nature, for example if a religious rule prohibited looking into a certain field of experiments then the science wouldn't do so because the scientists were the clerics, too. The necessities of the Universe, however, forced those early scientists into trespassing borders for which they themselves were guardians. Thus, differentiation occurred...
Like all living systems, differentiation turned this mixture into distinct bodies of knowledge whose development is not hindered by the limitations imposed by other bodies of knowledge. Every body of knowledge could contain pieces of knowledge that were contrary to the contents of another body. The sum of these knowledge bodies is the complete set of what human species knows. It is the manifestation of all human capabilities for looking into the Universe and contains more or less developed forms of whatever "category" of knowledge possible for human species.
Every human individual has a prototype of this Summa Gnaritas which includes preliminary knowledge of all these categories. Each of these bodies of knowledge is responsible for parts of the individual's interaction with the Universe. Science, for example, is responsible for accumulation, organization, archival, interpretation, analysis and synthesis of sensory information, in fact, the Know-How of the Universe.
One specific body of knowledge discussed here is Ethics. Ethics is the category of knowledge that deals with scoring individual's interaction. It takes a set of choices and prefers one or more over the others based on given criteria and by designating each choice with a specific score on the scale of rightness. Considering this idea, one can always be sure of the existence of Ethics in every human individual but can noway be sure whether or not this individual version Ethics agrees with the common sense understanding of "right" and "wrong".
Science, as defined above, is distinct from Ethics. The human history has shown that a mismatch of these two distinct bodies and imposing the limitations of one of them on the other or the interpretation of one of them with the other, leads to a syndrome observed in the Middle Ages. Ethics by nature is stable and unchanging; it changes only under rare circumstances when the individual or the society faces major variations in its environment. Science by nature is ever-changing; its existence depends on a continuous cycle of observation, hypothesizing and assessment.
Ethics, especially when it is affected by Religion, can't be guaranteed to qualify for assessing science. Science, too, can't assess human Ethics, human preferences in particular, with its criteria of verifiability, confidence and creditability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A scientist although committed to promoting science is not different from other individuals. She/he surely carries with her/him a body of knowledge, namely Ethics, which evaluates her/his interaction with the Universe on the scale of rightness. This individual Ethics, however, may or may not agree with others' versions of Ethics and this will lead to confusion.
The only way I can conceive of for resolving this confusion is the existence of "higher" Ethics, a way to evaluate the individual Ethics and decide whether or not it is worth maintaining. Unfortunately, or fortunately, a "higher" Ethics requires public consensus on a protocol of evaluation and such consensus is simply non-existent. Consequently, every individual including scientists is left to herself/himself to decide whether or not their individual Ethics needs alteration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One proposition for gaining a consensus on Ethics and rules for individual behavior is to set up rules chosen consciously by the majority of individuals, as it is supposed to be done in democratic states. This, however, can lead to the dictatorship of the majority which has been proven to be always bigot and/or stupid and/or naive. Hence, I personally can't rely on the majority or the public for our preferences which are obviously critical to our survival.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There remains one more personal conception I've had for a long time. It seems that science at its utmost purity gives us a good omen. I call this omen "Awe", Awe of the Universe. There is unimaginable complexity outside and inside us. There is the Unknown in which we are wrapped from the interior and the exterior. And all this can be seen from a scientist's point of view. Awe of the Universe can teach a human being to refrain from misbehaving against the great complexity it doesn't understand. It can give the human being a reason to strive for the survival of the species and not only the self.
We know no human being is acting against its own survival but we also see that individual efforts for survival counter-act and ruin lives. Awe of the Universe can harmonize individual efforts for survival to save the species.
Awe of the Universe is a personal matter. I think it is born inside every human studying the Universe. However, it can lead to mutual benefit because it is targeted at the same Universe for every individual. From that I prefer the Awe of the Universe over all publicly chosen rules. It is personal enough to ensure that the individual committed to it will revere it - because it’s her/his own brainchild - yet common enough to be the basis for the survival of the species.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions still there:
If Awe of the Universe is born inside every scientist then why do scientists work for ARPA, DoD and multi-national companies who apparently act against the species? How does it happen that so many scientists - who are surely aware of the destructive results of actions taken by the Authority - do not oppose? Is it that "science at its utmost purity" is peculiar to a minority of scientists?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS: This whole is only my thoughts and I don't claim any righteousness for them more than what everyone could claim for their thoughts but ask everyone to read them carefully and please answer them as if they would like their own precious thoughts to be answered.
