Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality

Mad Vlad wants to know:

>something most anarchists here will deny is the existence of something
>that could be called *immoral science*. is there such a thing? 
............................................................

No.  There are, however, immoral scientists.   One way to skew the
interpretations of what you write, besides bringing up the subject of
morality, is to describe things in ways which do not correspond to their
actual manner of existence:  "science" does not exist without those
individuals who have set themselves to pursue it.  They should bear the
blame if they practice it immorally.

You again have brought up several issues which can be examined separately
and do not necessarily coexist:

.  being a scientist
.  pretending to be scientific
.  choosing to pursue science
.  being smart enough to pursue scientific research
.  being successful in the scientific pursuit of truths
.  giving a damn about the consequences of the effects of research as it
affects humanity or other living things (as when it is imposed upon them)
.  responsibility in science
.  responsibility in science as practiced by mendicants of the State
.  the regulation of responsibility per se
.  the regulation of the methods of science
.  the support of irresponsible scientific methods, by slaves of the State
.  anarchist cypherpunkery

I become exceedingly uncomfortable at the realization that I have to buy an
astronomy magazine from the store, paying yet again for info, in order to
find out some of what they're doing at NASA.   To think that a responsible
citizen like myself must go out searching for the info themselves, using
whatever resources they can find or pay for, in order to become informed!
There are all sorts of things that government employees do not "share" with
those who pay the bills.

There is a book in Objectivist literature which presents the idea of
"context dropping", which is, that in order for some people to function as
if things were normal and that what they're doing is consistent with moral
principles, they must drop a part of their information out of sight, out of
thought, so that their actions appear logically related and make sense  -
they eliminate elements from the given context, crucial essentials which
make the difference in its character.  People like these might practice
secrecy in keeping information from others, but equally significant, they
also hide things from themselves.

So that's one thing which would explain some scientist's lack of moral
principles in the pursuit of science.   Then it must be explained why so
many people aren't complaining about it.  Are they insensitive to their
mistreatment, sitting ducks for opportunists?  Or maybe these taxpayers are
equally immoral, thinking only about promised benefits, forgetting about
the disadvantage of losing control over the quality of their life?

It's possible for some people to override the boundaries of decency, even
if they're otherwise smart enough to pursue science.  But what would you
expect cryptographers to do about it?


    ..
Blanc

> Mad Vlad wants to know:
>
>>something most anarchists here will deny is the existence of something
>>that could be called *immoral science*. is there such a thing? 
>............................................................
>
>No.  There are, however, immoral scientists.   One way to skew the
>interpretations of what you write, besides bringing up the subject of
>morality, is to describe things in ways which do not correspond to their
>actual manner of existence:  "science" does not exist without those
>individuals who have set themselves to pursue it.  

hmm, lets see, there were german scientists perfecting the ability
to torture people in the death camps. they were practicing science,
no? was it immoral? no? was it criminal? criminal but not immoral?

>They should bear the
>blame if they practice it immorally.

they should bear a cost, a penalty, a censure, 
imposed by their moral peers.  (oops, there's that word "should". 
yikes, I am really slipping. please forgive me for pretending I
actually have a point here.)

>You again have brought up several issues which can be examined separately
>and do not necessarily coexist:

well, it does help to have a highly fragmented brain to exist in todays
world. one that doesn't think about things like tax money and
evil government scientists at the same moment <g>

>
>There is a book in Objectivist literature which presents the idea of
>"context dropping", which is, that in order for some people to function as
>if things were normal and that what they're doing is consistent with moral
>principles, they must drop a part of their information out of sight, out of
>thought, so that their actions appear logically related and make sense  -
>they eliminate elements from the given context, crucial essentials which
>make the difference in its character.  People like these might practice
>secrecy in keeping information from others, but equally significant, they
>also hide things from themselves.

this is just basic Freudianism. but I agree its what I'm talking about.

>So that's one thing which would explain some scientist's lack of moral
>principles in the pursuit of science.   Then it must be explained why so
>many people aren't complaining about it.  Are they insensitive to their
>mistreatment, sitting ducks for opportunists?  Or maybe these taxpayers are
>equally immoral, thinking only about promised benefits, forgetting about
>the disadvantage of losing control over the quality of their life?

who cares why it is happening? I care, but I also want it stopped. and
I want others to care enough to want, and work, to stopping it.

>It's possible for some people to override the boundaries of decency, even
>if they're otherwise smart enough to pursue science.  But what would you
>expect cryptographers to do about it?

a mere cryptographer can do nothing. a mere anarchist will encourage
you not to. a moral human being might become alarmed enough to 
change their perspective and participate in government, or changing
government, in a way other than watching election commercials between 
the segments of their favorite TV show.  an anarchist will deny such
an activity is even possible.

At 07:14 PM 1/12/98 -0800, Blanc wrote:
> Mad Vlad wants to know:
>>something most anarchists here will deny is the existence of something
>>that could be called *immoral science*. is there such a thing? 
>............................................................
>
>No.  There are, however, immoral scientists.   One way to skew the

Depends.  [#invoke Godwin's Law]
Consider the Nazi studies done on human susceptibility to freezing,
poisons, torture, etc., and the followon work done by various
evil empires.  Some of it was just done for fun,
but some of it _was_ real science, with hypotheses and experiments,
and there's only so much research you can do into the
resistence of the body to serious damage without actually
damaging live bodies, most accidental damage to human bodies
isn't done in sufficiently instrumented environments to be useful,
and it's just _damn_ hard to get good volunteers these days.
Did most of that work rate as "immoral science" - I'd say so.

Now, some of it has uses outside the torture business,
but the primary customer of the work on freezing was the
nuclear bomber forces of some of the larger evil empires,
which wanted to know how much risk they could take
destroying their competitors' motherlands.  Sure, part of the goal
is to protect their employees, but even that is primarily to
increase their ability to destroy their enemies' civilians,
which is pretty morally dicey even if your enemy is evil.

A few users like oil companies have workers in the Arctic, and 
most moral organizations are more concerned about preventing accidents 
and minimizing risks to workers than getting away with
as much damage to their workers as they can; there are still
some legitimate uses of the knowledge like how to do medical
care for freezing-related accident victims, or extreme situations
like nuclear power-plant disaster cleanup.  But not a lot.


				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

[nazi death studies]
>Did most of that work rate as "immoral science" - I'd say so.

uh huh
but we have a problem. I thought "technology is neutral".
hmmmmm, maybe technology != science.....?

>A few users like oil companies have workers in the Arctic, and 
>most moral organizations are more concerned about preventing accidents 
>and minimizing risks to workers than getting away with
>as much damage to their workers as they can; there are still
>some legitimate uses of the knowledge like how to do medical
>care for freezing-related accident victims, or extreme situations
>like nuclear power-plant disaster cleanup.  But not a lot.

interesting book on this a friend told me about: "toxic 
sludge is good for you" -- describes for example
how many oil companies are creating an effective *facade* 
based on very aggressive PR campaigns.

if anyone wants good info on the state of our times, and
how our government has been hijacked.... check this one
out. it shows that as savvy as "you" think you are
(you is anybody here), we're all living in a gingerbread
fantasy world created by the mass media-- even when you're
not tuned into it.

At 10:20 PM -0800 1/13/98, Bill Stewart wrote:

>Consider the Nazi studies done on human susceptibility to freezing,
>poisons, torture, etc., and the followon work done by various
>evil empires.  Some of it was just done for fun,
>but some of it _was_ real science, with hypotheses and experiments,
>and there's only so much research you can do into the
>resistence of the body to serious damage without actually
>damaging live bodies, most accidental damage to human bodies
>isn't done in sufficiently instrumented environments to be useful,
>and it's just _damn_ hard to get good volunteers these days.
>Did most of that work rate as "immoral science" - I'd say so.

I think it's an error to use "moral" or "immoral" as a modifier for "science."

It's a matter of opinion/ethics as to whether some science is "for immoral
purposes," but calling something "immoral science" is fraught with trouble.

To a vegetarian, any science related to meat production is "immoral science."

To a devout pacifist, any science related to weapons in any way is "immoral
science."

To an Orthodox Jew, any science done on the Sabbath is "immoral science."

To a Communist, any science which refutes scientific socialism is "immoral
science."

To the Catholic Church, circa 1500, any science which challenged the
earth-centric view was "immoral science."

Personally, I don't view scientific experiments done on condemned prisoners
as immoral. If a human being has already been sentenced to die, and, for
example, accepts some payment (perhaps for his heirs) to die in some
scientifically interesting way, why call it "immoral"?

While I would not have, I hope, worked in a Nazi death camp, the science
obtained is undeniably real science, some of the only solid data we have on
freezing humans, on exposing them to pathogens, etc.

(BTW, there are those who believe using placebos in experiments involving
life-threatening situations (like diseases) is "immoral science." I view it
as a necessary way to do science in this arena. So long as the patients are
informed as to the protocol, and understand they may randomly end up in the
placebo group, I have no problems. Nonetheless, the fact that some or all
in the control group will die in the experiment is deemed by some to be
"immoral.")


--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

timmy predictably states the case for moral relativism.

>I think it's an error to use "moral" or "immoral" as a modifier for "science."
>
>It's a matter of opinion/ethics as to whether some science is "for immoral
>purposes," but calling something "immoral science" is fraught with trouble.
>
>To a vegetarian, any science related to meat production is "immoral science."

well, the concept of "criminality" is likewise fraught with trouble.
what is criminal and what is not? obviously some definitions stretch
the limits. is a jaywalker a criminal? a political dissident? ok, how
about an axe murderer?  similarly, I think your predictable opposition
to the use of the word "immoral" is specious. 

moreover, I think such a  misunderstanding, or worldview, is 
detrimental to human welfare in general. I think all the evil 
government scientists I've been referring to recently would
very much agree with you on rejecting ideas of "morality" and 
"conscience". a person does not need an infallible definition
of morality to navigate the world, imho, but a person that has
none, or rejects any such attempt, is part of the problem and
not part of the solution, imho.

>Personally, I don't view scientific experiments done on condemned prisoners
>as immoral. If a human being has already been sentenced to die, and, for
>example, accepts some payment (perhaps for his heirs) to die in some
>scientifically interesting way, why call it "immoral"?

oh, well, lets see, you have a very obvious glitch in your reasoning.
you presume the prisoner gives his permssion. now lets see, assume he
doesn't? just to pop a hypothetical example out of the blue,
say someone named timmy gets arrested for gun violations and
gets thrown in jail temporarily. would it be immoral for the
police to remove his organs? perhaps without his permission? 
perhaps without anesthetic? if not immoral, what? criminal? criminal
but not immoral?

>While I would not have, I hope, worked in a Nazi death camp, the science
>obtained is undeniably real science, some of the only solid data we have on
>freezing humans, on exposing them to pathogens, etc.

I've seen your defense of these experiments before-- its a topic of
interest for you for obvious reasons; it presents a possible glitch
in your moral relativism.

I don't think BWs claim that there is a difference between 
immoral scientists and immoral science. immoral science is what
immoral scientists practice. what's the point? my personal point
is that if we had a culture of people who were concerned about
morality, perhaps we would have institutions that reflect
integrity. 

contrary to most here, I believe that our institutions
are correctly representing the people of a country-- their thoughts,
their motivations, their concerns. its key to the philosophy of
disenfranchisement, apathy, and nihilism (and anarchism) to 
claim that the government is not representing the people. what
is the evidence for this? 

because the government is corrupt,
the people are not necessarily corrupt? because the government
is greedy and full of powermongers, the population is not
full of greedy powermongers who would do the same given the
opportunity? government is a mirror into our psyches that
few people care to gaze on, precisely because we are not
the fairest of them all.

we've got the government we deserve, and it reflects our
own pathologies within our psyches back to us. it reflects our
laziness and apathy, our cynicism, our alienation, our 
withdrawal. and it takes a person who can master themselves 
to face up to this simple truth-- something that most everone of our 
country has failed to admit.

when we begin to ask questions like "what is integrity" and
"what is moral" and come up with serious answers, our world
will improve. it will degenerate otherwise, and has given us
a tremendous existence proof of that fact to date.

but just remember, again, that I'm aimlessly ranting here, and there's no
need to take any of this seriously <g>

Vladimir the MoraLogical wrote:

>I don't think BWs claim that there is a difference between 
>immoral scientists and immoral science. immoral science is what
>immoral scientists practice. what's the point? my personal point
>is that if we had a culture of people who were concerned about
>morality, perhaps we would have institutions that reflect
>integrity. 
...........................................................

First the question was, what is "moral", now it must be, what is "science":
 what makes science, or its methods, 'scientific' - what's the difference
and what's the point; is there a relation, and which is first, the chicken,
or the egg (could science discover the truth about morality, and would that
make the science moral, or the scientists)?

Of course, if people were more moral, we would have institutions which
reflected that integrity.  The problem is, how could they be made to become
so, and what type of methods, used toward that end, would be moral?

    ..
Blanc

>
>Of course, if people were more moral, we would have institutions which
>reflected that integrity.  The problem is, how could they be made to become
>so, and what type of methods, used toward that end, would be moral?
>

no one can be "made" to do anything, even in a tyrannical environment.
even in a tyranny a person has the choice of disobeying authority.

Rand had one way of promoting what she saw as integrity-- writing about
it, lobbying about it, philosophizing about it. she was a bit
fanatical at times about her beliefs-- which were very much about
morality and integrity, only defined in an unusual way. more power to
her, I say. a step in the right direction.

another way would be to confront publicly those that seem not to care about
integrity or morality, engage in a sort of socratean dialogue about it,
and let the lurkers decide for themselves if they are really the moral 
vacuums some appear to be, and whether they (the lurkers) wish to
follow that path. goring sacred cows and seeing where the blood flows,
so to speak.

the public will begin to care about integrity and morality when it realizes
that the pain of failing to do so is not worth the immediate gratification
the vacuity seems to provide. that this will happen is not assured.

(somehow this thread has been sustaining itself on its own, despite my
increasing lack of interest as the group mind wanders far from my 
original points, which again I find obvious and barely worth rebutting.)