Just Thinking about Science Triggers Moral Behavior

Sensitive Blake Griffin

Sensitive Blake Griffin

Banned
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
37,124
Reputation
2,638
Daps
67,704
Public opinion towards science has made headlines over the past several years for a variety of reasons — mostly negative. High profile cases of academic dishonesty and disputes over funding have left many questioning the integrity and societal value of basic science, while accusations of politically motivated research fly from left and right. There is little doubt that science is value-laden. Allegiances to theories and ideologies can skew the kinds of hypotheses tested and the methods used to test them. These, however, are errors in the application of the method, not the method itself. In other words, it’s possible that public opinion towards science more generally might be relatively unaffected by the misdeeds and biases of individual scientists. In fact, given the undeniable benefits scientific progress yielded, associations with the process of scientific inquiry may be quite positive.

Researchers at the University of California Santa Barbara set out to test this possibility. They hypothesized that there is a deep-seated perception of science as a moral pursuit — its emphasis on truth-seeking, impartiality and rationality privileges collective well-being above all else. Their new study, published in the journal PLOSOne, argues that the association between science and morality is so ingrained that merely thinking about it can trigger more moral behavior.

The researchers conducted four separate studies to test this. The first sought to establish a simple correlation between the degree to which individuals believed in science and their likelihood of enforcing moral norms when presented with a hypothetical violation. Participants read a vignette of a date-rape and were asked to rate the “wrongness” of the offense before answering a questionnaire measuring their belief in science. Indeed, those reporting greater belief in science condemned the act more harshly.

Of course, a simple correlation is susceptible to multiple alternative explanations. To rule out these possibilities, Studies 2-4 used experimental manipulations to test whether inducing thoughts about science could influence both reported, as well as actual, moral behavior. All made use of a technique called “priming” in which participants are exposed to words relevant to a particular category in order to increase its cognitive accessibility. In other words, showing you words like “logical,” “hypothesis,” “laboratory” and “theory” should make you think about science and any effect the presentation of these words has on subsequent behavior can be attributed to the associations you have with that category.

Participants first completed a word scramble task during which they either had to unscramble some of these science-related words or words that had nothing to do with science. They then either read the date-rape vignette and answered the same questions regarding the severity of that transgression (Study 2), reported the degree to which they intended to perform a variety of altruistic actions over the next month (Study 3), or engaged in a behavioral economics task known as the dictator game (Study 4). In the dictator game the participant is given a sum of money (in this case $5) and told to divide that sum however they please between themselves and an anonymous other participant. The amount that participants give to the other is taken to be an index of their altruistic motivation.

Across all these different measures, the researchers found consistent results. Simply being primed with science-related thoughts increased a) adherence to moral norms, b) real-life future altruistic intentions, and c) altruistic behavior towards an anonymous other. The conceptual association between science and morality appears strong.

Though this finding replicates across different measures and methods, there’s one variable that might limit the generalizability of the effect. There is some evidence suggesting that attitudes towards science vary across political parties with conservatives having become decreasingly trustworthy of science over the past several decades. Though the researchers did include measures of religiosity in their studies, which did not affect the relationship between science and morality, ideally they would have also controlled for political affiliation. It’s not a stretch to imagine that undergraduate students at the University of Santa Barbara disproportionately represent liberals. If so, the relationship between science and morality found here might be stronger in self-described liberals.

That said, there’s also reason to believe that the general public, liberal or conservative, can draw a distinction between the scientific process and its practitioners. In the same way that people might mistrust politicians but still see nobility in the general organizing principles of our political structure, we could hold charitable views of science independent of how it might be conducted.

These results might seem encouraging, particularly to fans of science. But one possible cost of assigning moral weight to science is the degree to which it distorts the way we respond to research conclusions. When faced with a finding that contradicts a cherished belief (e.g. a new study suggesting that humans have, or have not, contributed to global warming), we are more likely to question the integrity of the practitioner. If science is fundamentally moral, then how could it have arrived at such an offensive conclusion? Blame the messenger.

How can we correct this thought process? A greater emphasis on, and better understanding of, the method might do the trick. It’s significantly harder to deny the import of challenging findings when you have the tools necessary to evaluate the process by which scientists arrived at their results. That new study on global warming is tougher to dismiss when you know (and care enough to check) that the methods used are sound, regardless of what you think the authors’ motivations might be. In the absence of such knowledge, the virtue assigned to “science” might also be a motivational force for ideological distortion, the precise opposite of impartial truth-seeking.
Click to expand...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=just-thinking-about-science-triggers-moral-behavior

:umad:
 
Mr. Somebody

Mr. Somebody

Friend Of A Friend
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
28,262
Reputation
2,041
Daps
43,614
Reppin
Los Angeles
Scientists probably have their hearts in good places like chests but sadly, friends, their research is often funded by a 3rd party who has power and control over the application of their research. How many scientists do you feel have quit jobs, are depressed, have taken on substance abuse or been outright murdered because they did not agree with how their research was applied. Until alot of these moral scientists control the reigns of their research and its application we'll have a lot of moral people that just unknowingly, end up working for demons.

Its so demonic, friends. :sitdown:
 
Last edited:
Blackking

Blackking

Banned
Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
21,566
Reputation
2,486
Daps
26,224
At first read - no problem at all with this study. it's not like this is an anti religions study, just shows how the participants reacted.

But then.....

wtf, lol and seriously? immediately came to mind. Especially when I saw the post in here ,lol. u guys are just sad. so circlejerky and so narrow-minded.

Though the researchers did include measures of religiosity in their studies, which did not affect the relationship between science and morality, ideally they would have also controlled for political affiliation. It’s not a stretch to imagine that undergraduate students at the University of Santa Barbara disproportionately represent liberals. If so, the relationship between science and morality found here might be stronger in self-described liberals.
Click to expand...
1. Liberals are more moral?? is that some type of fact? also morality is subjective... and obviously based on whatever the hell parameters the scientist have determined. NTM, look at the school, ages, and the way the subjects lean politically - this isn't an across the board test that can imply anything about the general public.

2. Selflessness doesn't equal morality. Look at the test.. they only test levels of caring about people. Even if the test did test morals--- What are the scientist personal opinionated biased views on "moral norms"??? That isn't laid out clearly. even if it was clear and fair and accurate - Morality is based on an accepted system (whether religious or secular) - and involves more than altruistic behavior. People have different levels of selflessness that doesn't necessarily correlate with their morality.

3.
Though the researchers did include measures of religiosity in their studies, which did not affect the relationship between science and morality, ideally they would have also controlled for political affiliation.
Click to expand...
Why exactly are we in here bashing religion... when clearly religion is the Only thing they tested accurately and used different measures for?? Says that religion isn't affecting the acceptance of science in it's affect on 'morality'

4.
Public opinion towards science has made headlines over the past several years for a variety of reasons — mostly negative.
Click to expand...
your a fool if you believe that religion is pushing this negativity. Also your a see through fly by night scientific reader. Honestly brehs, the scientific community has been fukking up. Mostly good, but when ur dealing with 'facts' and knowledge - people don't let shyt slide. And ok ok ok ok okok , sure the scientific method corrects itself - but Gottdamn - when u switch shyt up so many times and every time the evidence is peer reviewed and basically irrefutable then... it's gets ridiculous. And sure religious people and conservatives may pay closer attention to the fukk ups - but the solution is to not fukk up as often or atleast avoid conclusions BEFORE test.. Then the Funding. smh I have liberal friends who talk this political campaign finance shyt.... but for some weird reason turn a blind eye to the fukkkery that happen in EVERY single area of science.

5.
That said, there’s also reason to believe that the general public, liberal or conservative, can draw a distinction between the scientific process and its practitioners.
Click to expand...
I haven't found this to be true, Have you guys?? NTM, the general public doesn't even understand the scientific process, shyt- i got good grades in biology and chemistry at great universities and I Obviously don't even understand it.

6. So none of us have participated or conducted these types of experiments??? Priming... come on brehs, lets show the words- logical, examine, research, method, etc... then pretend to be surprised at the results when asking about morals, killings, animal rights, racism, eating habits, S&M, etc... I'm just dead at this shyt.

7. Let's only post 1 article like this brehs.. So no other studies prove that when a person is well off, at a liberal school, is a liberal - will reject scientific studies that are against something they strongly believe... or vice verse??? :usure:

8. Is there really supposed to be some sort of defense to academic dishonesty in science !!!!!!!! smh, high learning.

9. science has been used for most of everything we use to destroy. to Cheat on spouses, blow people up etc. thinking about science isn't a moral thought sparker in anyone's brain. It's not positive or negative.. it's a way to explore and figure out the world. Not a way to defend bad scientist, corrupt funding, or a gross amount of biased research over the last 15 years. My smartphone gives me happy thoughts, but mkultra doesn't. Is it wrong to feed animals on safaris ?.. yes at some places.. my ex she did that shyt against my advice because she is a fukk as liberal animal loving fakkit... However, She isn't immoral for that wrong offense. And I'm not even gonna get into how there is rarely any pure altruism.

10. gtfoh... do better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top