Should Scientists pursue all topics? Why or why not?

Question

are there limits?

Answer 1

I disagree with the person who thought this was an antiquated question.

I think we (I'm a scientist) have a moral obligation to think forward to the applications of our work. Unfortunately, even when we do that we often find a double edged sword with simultaneous potential for great good or evil. We tend to err on the optimistic, surely it will be used for good view. The scientist isn't the person who ultimately regulates use, any more than an author can control how their words will be interpreted or applied. As a scientist, we (I) can make every effort to inform the politicians and public of issues related to our work in attempt to avoid "surprises."

There is also a real responsibility for the public to stay informed... and that takes effort on their part.

Aloha

Answer 2

this was a pretty popular question about 150 years ago when science was just getting rolling and people had stronger ideas about what was "right" or "allowed. Remember all those old sci fi movies from the 1930s where the scientist screws up and then at the end he says, "Man was never meant to know this!"

OK, I don't think that attitude exists much any more. Scientists have studied sex, morals, intelligence, prejudice, human genetics, etc. On the whole, they have turned out a lot more pieces of information that were helpful, than harmful.

The real question is a little different. Instead of asking "should they pursue all topics" probably you could ask, "what topics should have the highest priority for scientists to explore?" You know, there are not NEARLY enough scientists to study all the different topics that we could study. So, which topics should be studied first? You could make a list and then only give money to the scientists who study those topics. We actually do things pretty much this way. If you want to study medicines (which we consider important) then you can get a lot of money for research, but if you want to study say, spiders that live in eskimo igloos, then there probably arent as many people who want to pay you for that.
The trouble with this kind of system is, sometimes you just don;t know what piece of information is going to turn out to be valuable. Some guy could be studying something really obscure and the next thing you know, zingo! he finds something worth a gazillion dollars or something that saves a gazillion lives! I knew a guy who thought that horseshoe crabs were really cool. He wanted to study them but lots of people told him that was a waste of time. He wound up finding a chemical in the horseshoe crab blood that could be used in a medical test. Now he is really rich and a lot of people are alive because they had that test to help them when they were sick.

Answer 3

Topics of interest to scientists basically include any area of knowledge in which an idea or hypothesis can be proven wrong. At the risk of being a bit irrelevant, here are some useful definitions:

Hypothesis: an idea or "guess" about why something happens.

Theory: a hypothesis that has been tested and supported by experiments or extensive observations. A theory not only explains existing facts, but it predicts the results of future experiments or observations, and is therefore much more than just a "guess".

Law: a popular scientific term up until the 20th century; it generally refers to scientific theories that have been so well proven that their truth is accepted essentially without question (Laws of Thermodynamics, Newton's Laws of Motion, etc.).

Answer 4

I think that should and topics are both fuzzy words. They make this question very vague.

Should requires a set of standards, and topics also requires boundaries.

There are questions that science can not ask, because they are contrived to be unanswerable by science. Is there a universe outside our own that science can not detect. If science cant detect it, then it cant detect it, and that detection should not be pursued.

There are questions that some argue should not be asked, like how to build a nuclear weapon, optimal ways to start an international thermonuclear war, or how to build diseases that would make humanity go extinct. The answers to those questions are dangerous, but use of should requires a values system. Several nations pursue building thermonuclear weapons, so according to their internal values-systems it is allowable, and they think they should.

Without clarification on what should and topics mean a more rigorous answer to this isnt going to be coming from me.

Answer 5

Scientists should pursue topics that improve the general well-being of humanity. The pursuit of knowledge is noble, but the uses of that knowledge may not be. Some topics, such as the development of weapons of mass destruction, are of doubtful value. There is a virtually limitless number of possible research topics and scientists ought to choose to research those topics that their society is able to use properly.

Answer 6

Science pursues knowledge about the physical workings of the known universe. If a topic can be examined with the scientific method (i.e. observe-hypothesize-test-build model (theorize)-test-make unobserved predictions from model-test more...) then scientists are free to pursue it and understand the significance of the technology behind their discovery.

I believe that science, and the knowledge it produces, is morally neutral.

There are certain questions that can not ever be answered by science because they can not be studied using the scientific method, for example, science will never prove/disprove the existence of a supernatural deity.

Answer 7

Science is wonderful and 'science' in a general sense, means 'measureable-quantifiable' correct? What if scientists discovered a method that enabled 'man-woman' to read thoughts-accurately forecast behavior? Who would be in a position to purchase such a technology and, how would "they-?" use said techology?

Personally, I hope we don't pursue all topics because we are too immature to use the information in a responsible manner. Often times, "fools rush in where angels fear to tread." It's just an opinion but, 'man-woman' will rush in regardless of the consequences.

Maybe I'm a cynic or a realist?

Respectfully,

Seeker42

Answer 8

no, thats an infinite number of topics, so it is impossible

each scientist has to look at their own skills, support, and interest and pursue a few topics only

with so many scientists, all with different interests and skill sets, it means that many many but not all, topics are pursued

Answer 9

One scientist should not pursue all topics. As an undergrad you get a cross section of topics. Post grad you should be specializing.

Answer 10

Yes by all means. Everything that can be known should be known.Even atomic holocaust. Otherwise we will be playing false to the gift which has either been given by god or we have ourselves developed during evolution If the first monkey had second thoughts of coming down from the tree we would still be in that stage.No doubt it brought some griefs also but that is the price we have to pay like Promesthues.