John

A lie by definition is never acceptable, except in those cases where the social
system the person exists within is so unpleasent as to require it. For a person
to claim to be a scientist and to engage in lying to those outside of the
scientific realm is however unacceptable.

As already suggested I cannot imagine a scientific or technological action which
is outside of the political sphere - please propose one if you can... For a
scientist or indeed a philosopher to engage in lying for the furtherance of
career or some spurious idea is I would suggest to engage in unethical
behavior.  To applaud someone for lying for the highest motivations is to
suggest, perhaps I should say rather that I read your statement as suggesting,
that actions should be judged against an external moral purpose unfortunately...

It is worth thinking in terms of biopolitics at this point - to create a
concrete area of work - The fascist vision of biopolitics derived from 'the
conviction that soil and blood constitute what is essential about
Germaness...'(Rosenberg) from this and related discourses and ideologies a
complete range of biological and psychological subset of sciences were invented.
The experimentation on humans was justified through a biopolitical sleight of
hand which allowed the sub-human to be treated in any fashion that was
acceptable to the state and the nation. The scientists accepted the ideological
position and included all natural life within the political realm - at this
point any lying or evasion of ethical responsibility became unacceptable -
because almost any act or experiment imagined by a scientist could feasibly take
place and frequently did. The biopolitics of fascism revolve around the
definition of what constitutes a member of the local (A German etc) raised to
the level of scientific truth and investigation. I do not want at this point to
go further into the common insanity of scientists engaging in biopolitically
justified experiments - the history of vaccinations and also radiation
experiments are good examples if you need any - commonly knowledge has been
acquired by scientists that has required the torture and death of human beings -
the human beings and animals so tortured - actions and discourses sanctioned by
the political realm. The human subjects were denied all natural (that is
non-political) rights that we customarily apply on an everyday basis to the
human subject - the human beings were situated outside of the limits of human
existence... Abandoned to whatever extreme experiments scientists and the
political could imagine for them...

For myself the only acceptable ethical position against which to judge this is
to accept that this has taken place but that it does not diminsh the
responsibility of any scientist for their actions and statements. To lie, to
make statements which do not recognise your responsibility is to continue with
these appalling practices.

regards

sdv



John Hewitt wrote:

> Brad,
> Thank you for your posting.  If it contains a message I am unable to discern
> it.
>
> My concern is with scientific lying.  The particular field which concerns me
> is has no political overtones beyoond those associated with all scientific
> debate.
> http://freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/  "A Habit of Lies - How Scientists
> Cheat."
>
> As far as I can tell, you seem to be saying that when scientists (and other
> professionals) lie, they may well be doing so in order to maintain the high
> standards to which they are comitted.  In other words, there is good
> scientific lying and bad scientific lying.  Accordingly, scientific liars
> should sometimes be applauded for their high motivations, not condemned for
> their deceit.
>
> Please tell me whether or not that is what you want me to understand.
>
> Yours Sincerely
>
> John Hewitt
>
> >
> > "People are always saying that things aren't just black and white", etc.
> > Yes?
> >
> > I was giving an example (and not a lightly made-up one, but one
> > of which I became aware from the news media!) of how, even in the
> > extra-empirical empyrean of "SCIENCE", there may be times
> > when to *lie* may be the human[e]ly *right* thing to do.
> >
> > So, yes, I have to agree with the "message" you got from what I wrote.
> > But it should be quite obvious that for Werner Heisenberg
> > to lie to the Nazis about the feasibility of an atomic bomb is
> > rather different from (e.g.) Madam Curie lying [if only by
> > keeping silent...] about the carcinogenic effects of X-rays.
> >
> > If Heisenberg lied about fission, it was for the good of humanity.
> > For Curie to lie about X-rays was simply self-promotion of the
> > vocational and avocational objectives with which she
> > identified her self.
> >
> > >
> > > Can he confirm that this is what he wants to say?  If so, I would be
> > > interested in examples that do not have political overtones.
> >
> > By "politics", I understand all human praxis which has
> > anything to do with shaping two or more persons' shared
> > social life.  I can't imagine anything *without* political
> > overtones, except perhaps a hermit succeeding in
> > instantiating the paradigm of
> > the tree which falls in a forest where there is
> > nobody to hear.
> >
> > > I would also
> > > like to know what tests could be applied to distinguish them.
> > [snip]
> >
> > The "tests" are, hopefully, those of what I believe Aristotle called
> > "phronesis": that overarching form of social reasonableness which
> > situates even "reason", understood as such semiotic formations as
> > deductive argumentation, and the exact sciences of nature,
> > into "fit" places in our social life.  As Hans-Georg Gadamer
> > said:
> >
> >     We are a conversation
> >
> > Everything, in my opinion, needs to give an accounting
> > of itself to this conversation which we are, and,
> > apart from which there is not even nothing -- for
> > nothing itself is one of the things which gets deliberated about
> > in conversation (e.g., in the discourse of scientists
> > and philosophers).
> >
> > Of course, that is not a first-order answer to your
> > question, but rather a hypothesis about the social structures
> > which I believe need to be nurtured for your question (or
> > anything else!) to be most wisely considered. [Habermas,
> > and his notion of "discourse ethics" would be another source,
> > here....]
> >
> > Does any of this help clarify, and, I hope, *illuminate* anything?
> >
> > Yours in discourse(sic!)....
> >
> > +\brad mccormick
> >
> > --
> > John Hewitt wrote:
> > >
> > > I read Brad McCormick's posting and also the E-mail he sent direct to
> me.
> > >  It contains nothing that seems sensitive, so I have taken the liberty
> of
> > > tacking it below. I hope he does not mind.)  I would reply to them but I
> am
> > > unable to discern a clear message in his comments.
> > >
> > > As far as I can tell, he sems to be saying that scientists and other
> > > professionals sometimes lie in order to maintain the high standards to
> which
> > > they are comitted.  Accordingly, he seems to be suggesting, when they
> lie
> > > they should sometimes be applauded for their high motivations, not
> condemned
> > > for their deceit.  In other words, there is good scientific lying and
> bad
> > > scientific lying.