Quote

But the need for conflict to expose prejudice and unclear reasoning, which is deeply embedded in my philosophy of science, has its origin in these debates.

At the end of the day, if there are truly ethical considerations, those have to override scientific considerations.

Science by itself has no moral dimension. But it does seek to establish truth. And upon this truth morality can be built.

Disagreements are one of the fundamental positive aspects of science.

Younger scientists are extremely sensitive to the moral implications of all they do.

The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum. The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science.

Luckily for writers - and unluckily for history - every scientific idea creates human conflict.

The science of morality is about maximizing psychological and social health. It's really no more inflammatory than that.

There are a few dogmas and double standards and really regrettable exports from philosophy that have confounded the thinking of scientists on the subject of morality.

My personal conviction is that science is concerned wholly with truth, not with ethics.