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.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I consistently encounter people in academic settings and scientists and journalists who feel that you can't say that anyone is wrong in any deep sense about morality, or with regard to what they value in life. I think this doubt about the application of science and reason to questions of value is really quite dangerous.
Younger scientists are extremely sensitive to the moral implications of all they do.
The moral issue here is whether the United States Congress is going to stand in the way of science and preclude scientists from doing lifesaving research.
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.
Vanity of science. Knowledge of physical science will not console me for ignorance of morality in time of affliction, but knowledge of morality will always console me for ignorance of physical science.
I think we need to start thinking about grounding our moral systems in our biology.
My personal conviction is that science is concerned wholly with truth, not with ethics.
Science cannot resolve moral conflicts, but it can help to more accurately frame the debates about those conflicts.
There's no question that as science, knowledge and technology advance, that we will attempt to do more significant things. And there's no question that we will always have to temper those things with ethics.
No opposing quotes found.