The big risk in practicing science is that you may not like the answer it provides. The previous administration, when faced with results it didn’t like, decided to censor the results. I don’t see how this makes any sense. How can a government make decisions and policy when the facts are hidden or discredited based on predetermined biases?
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Yes, society can make ethical decisions without science. Best and current knowledge predates science and even with science society still can only work with the current state of knowledge and understanding.
That said, it has to be noted that the quality of ethical decision making cannot improve without science of some sort. And a lack of improvement, a failure to understanding the imperfection of the ethical decisions based current knowledge and/or a desire to improve, is, in its self, a lack of ethics.
Best and current knowledge is itself based on cruder forms of science.
One can make decisions of ethics without science; however, the choices resulting from such methods tend on balance to be less moral in consequences than those made with science helping.