Discussion on Means and Ends

There is an excellent discussion on Prometheus about whether it is OK to distort the means of science to justify certain ends. Money quote:

This is of course an issue much broader than climate change, and at its core is about how science is to operate in a democracy. The practice of science, insofar as it is related to action, is all about questions of means. That is, science can tell us something about the consequences of different possible courses of action. Science however cannot tell us how to value those consequences, which is the territory of ethics, values, religion, ideology, etc..

Once a scientist (a generic scientist!) decides to elevate ends above means in the area of their own expertise then they are in fact giving up on what their science can most contribute to the political process, and that is knowledge relevant to the means we employ in pursuit of desired ends.

Read the whole thing.

More like this

Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney have been promising something for a week, teasing
I will mirror this post on the Science Blogging Conference homepage. Let me know if I missed you (i.e., if you ever mentioned or intend to mention the conference on your blog). This will be updated until everyone is exhausted!
[Bumped up to make it easier for me to update, and links placed under the fold so not to clutter the front page]