"It's good for science."
We've all heard it. Actions of all kinds are legitimized by the inherent sociopolitical awe invoked by the word 'science' rendering it, ironically, to quasi religious status. But what is it about science that so drives us and allows us to turn our heads to some of the greater atrocities? We torture animals, why? To get a return on our investment down the road? Its not even that concrete, we torture animals for the potential to receive a benefit. We don't phrase it that way, because that would be bad politics. "We torture animals so we might get some useful knowledge later." "We test on animals for the sake of science, and science cured small pox." There is a significant difference in the two articulations of the same thing. Not all tests are small pox tests. There needs to be a more tangible benefit if we are to subject animals to such treatment, and there rarely is.
"It's good for science." I'm sure Joseph Mengele had a similar view.
Question: is the use of the term "science" a deliberate cover act to justify wrong actions?
The term 'science' acquired something of an honorific quality a little more than a century ago, though there is also a selective backlash against that, such that people feel entitled to reject well-founded science whose conclusions they dislike (e.g.: global climate change). I notice that fairly uncontested findings such as the multiple and deleterious effects of meat production and consumption seem exempt from the worship of science as well, not even getting much airtime.
ReplyDelete