“… an actual change of the human world, the conquest of space or whatever we may wish to call it, is achieved only when manned space carriers are shot into the universe, so that man himself can go where up to now only human imagination and its power of abstraction, or human ingenuity and its power of fabrication, could reach.” – Hannah Arendt.
Having disentangled, at least in part, the difference between philosophical and scientific cosmology last time, we now examine the ethical issues for humanity in general and ourselves as individuals with respect to it. It seems there are two types – that of action and that of contemplation. Today and next time we will consider the various ethical nuances of activities at the level of the cosmos. These fall into four broad categories: (1) the study of the physical space, (2) the search for extra-terrestrial life especially intelligent life, (3) the exploration of space, and (4) the moral dilemma of application of societal resources for scientific advances versus immediate human needs.
Detailed study of the physical universe is the arena of the trained scientist, an occupation seems to meet all the requirements of a virtuous activity as long as the scientist has integrity and shares his or her findings with the community at large. The amateur astronomer (‘citizen scientist’) can offer significant assistance to the specialist as for example in composite photographs of celestial bodies as seen on the NASA website (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/galaxy-quartet.html). Extra eyeballs aided by quality telescopes have identified new comets, nebulae, and at least twice seen celestial bodies slamming into Jupiter and leaving scars. For the less versed, the hobby of astronomy and purchase of a telescope or even binoculars literally ‘opens ones eyes’ to the magnificence of the heavens.
In two earlier posts I examined the philosophical implications of the ongoing search for life on other worlds.1 The ethical position seems to me to be this: we should seek truth when possible, and the truth about whether life on Earth is unique or not is an important one. 
If intelligent life is found outside our solar system, it is incumbent on us to investigate it, learn from it, reach out to it, and prepare for future contact. If intelligence is a valuable development of the unfolding universe, as it appears to be, then inter-communication between intelligent life forms may potentiate that value. Alternatively if extra-terrestrial life and intelligence cannot be found, the utter importance of preserving terrestrial species in general and Homo sapiens in particular is heightened.
(continued next post)
———————————————————–
1See posts on this site, Current Reading: We Are Not Alone, dated 3/29/2019 and 4/1/2019.
“None knows whence creation arose:
Alternatively, modern or scientific cosmology is a joint effort of the observational astronomer and the theoretical physicist to model the physical universe as a whole while omitting inductive or speculative philosophy. Resulting hypotheses are tested by additional confirmatory observations. The philosophical questions then center around methodological and epistemological concerns that are unavoidable in the unique system of the universe itself defiant of the experimental method.2 For this site our interest is in ethical implications for humanity, especially as they apply to the individual imposed by scientific cosmology. We pick up there next time.
A gross example is the Chernobyl disaster which occurred in 1986 when a routine safety test was conducted 10 hours late, hence using an unprepared operating staff. The result was an avoidable explosion in the reactor core, 30 deaths, radiation exposure to the local population, and the need for an exclusion zone that forced the evacuation of 117,000 people.2
Is human freedom and privacy threatened by cameras on every corner and satellites monitoring all of planet earth? These questions and many others of this type are impossible to answer in a brief blog, but the principles we should follow are the same as in other areas of ethics. Two main rules apply: (1) there should be a net benefit over harm and (2) the individual should never be treated as a means, only as an end. A careful ethical analysis at the level of the individual and of society offer our only hope to remain agents of good in our ever changing world.
Our immaturity as a species has allowed us to ignore the environmental impacts of modern technology – thus the industrial revolution and population growth now threaten climate change and an irreversible decline of other species of life. Equally ominous is our adolescent concept of nationalism which has been used to justify nuclear arsenals capable of extinction of humanity itself.
Pseudoscience, such as belief in UFOs, telepathy, and communication with the dead are often presented as following the methods of science, when in reality, they are contrived to appeal to our emotional needs. Sagan notes a linkage where pseudoscience is “embraced in exact proportion as real science is misunderstood.”4 Throughout his book he reiterates the dangers of pseudoscience and scientific ignorance in reducing health and life expectancy, waste of resources, danger to the Earth, even as threats to personal freedom.
Modern pseudoscience is a form of magic whose proponents “try to command the world by some formula which is other than the truth.” But society cannot go backward; “it was an irreversible step in the cultural evolution of man.”6 In the end, Bronowski argues, magic and pseudoscience are wrong if what we seek is a “unitary sense of the human situation.” Only science offers a basis for a cultural environment where “the only plan we follow is the great unbounded, ethical plan of a set of values by which we direct our actions.”7 p. 88
Having investigated what makes for virtue in the method of science last time, we move now to what makes for a virtuous attitude towards science by the lay person. The first philosopher who expounded on the modern scientific method was Francis Bacon, who in 1620 published his Novum Organum (in contradistinction to Aristotle’s Organum). In this work he identified four false ideas and methods which had handicapped human scientific progress: (1) Idols of the Tribe – emotional factors such as the human ideal of celestial bodies moving in circles, (2) Idols of the Cave – individual prejudices, (3) Idols of the Market Place – the loose use of language such as attributions of events to ‘fortune,’ and (4) Idols of the Theatre – philosophical speculation and dogmas, such as religion. Bacon predicted with uncanny accuracy that human progress and knowledge would rapidly advance only through a new approach of controlled observation and experimentation, tabulation, and inductive generalization – the very foundations of modern science.4
Nonetheless even today society seems to have a split personality with respect to science: utter reliance on its incredible usefulness on one side (such as the technology inside a cell phones or a microwave oven) and undue skepticism on the other (for example regarding evolution or climate change). Many people trust science only when confronted with the tangible; thus few doubt the value of aspirin or acetaminophen in relieving symptoms of influenza, but a large minority refuse the flu shot.
Joel Achenbach suggests the trouble is the human mind’s difficulty digesting randomness where our brains seek patterns which often can be deceptive. The same thing happens with scientists looking for specific outcomes or measurements, a type of error called ‘confirmation bias.’ We are also affected by our peers whose acceptance is transformed into emotions driving beliefs. Thus even scientifically literate persons tend to use their superior scientific knowledge to reinforce their beliefs rather than to test them. Intuitive error is a key factor as Dr. Andrew Shtulman has shown with studies on students advanced in science who he notes take longer to answer well known questions that counter intuition (for example, they answer more quickly that the moon orbits the earth than the earth orbits the sun).5
Paul Sears reviews nicely what he calls “memoranda” or general principles of the scientist: (1) the wish to be a scientist with its heavy reliance on intuition and aesthetic impulse, (2) faith in the consistency of the universe, (3) a code of testing and continuously verifying phenomena of interest, (4) desire to probe beyond the limits of the senses with induction, deduction, and inference, and (5) willingness (at times) to attack complex problems in advance of knowing all the details. I would add to these (6) scrupulous accuracy and honesty in recording and reporting, (7) open-mindedness (to contrary or contradictory data and theories), and (8) responsible sharing of one’s results and discoveries with peers and society.
Piltdown man, a forged fossil ‘found’ in 1912 was proposed as a 500,000 year old ‘missing link between humans and apes. It took 41 years before experts were able to demonstrate that the specimen had parts from three different species, the skull of a medieval human, the jaw and molars of an orangutan or a chimpanzee. An amateur archeologist, Charles Dawson, likely perpetrated the hoax with immeasurable harm to the course of physical anthropology.2
The second example is a 1998 study published in the highly reputable medical journal, The Lancet, by Andrew Wakefield purportedly showing a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, with data falsified for his own personal financial gain. The journal retracted the study after a detailed investigation revealed fraud, but child vaccination rates fell in Britain and elsewhere with resulting measles outbreaks that continue to this day.3
“Of course, scientists have been told to be socially responsible. Of course, I think society should be scientifically responsible as well.” – Sydney Brenner, Nobel Laureate in Medicine, 2002.
For example, astrology appears scientific, but is in fact completely speculative while astronomy is based on advanced tools and careful data collection. Third is the ethical use of science; this ultimate tool of good can easily be manipulated to serve dubious or evil purposes. Consider nuclear physics which can serve the potential good of an alternative form of energy or be used to create nuclear weapons which can kill millions. Last is the immersing of oneself in the cosmos itself – recognizing the place one occupies within it, the unfolding trajectory of the universe, and its ultimate meaning.
Soil. Humans are responsible for soil degradation, erosion, and toxic waste. There are many well-established and practical means to reverse soil deterioration including composting, use of natural fertilizers, avoidance of pesticides and herbicides, and sustainable agriculture. The virtuous person will be an agent for soil preservation and protection through exemplary conduct.
Territory. Man’s late arrival to the history of Earth tells us of the immense organization which preceded us, the transformation of organic and organic materials by various forms of life, and the interdependence of various species in a seamless web of life. We know for example that predators inhabit specific ranges and that differing species work different components of the bounty of living things leading to a natural ‘steady state.’8 Terrains as varied as desert, rain forest, and prairie are spaces where these steady states arise and sources of natural beauty that belong to all life present and future. Virtue entails curtailing the growth of human space when they threaten endangered species habitat and irreplaceable aesthetic landscapes.
Human influence includes ‘Brown Haze’ (as opposed to natural “Blue Haze” and ‘Gray Haze’) or air pollution – noxious gas and particles resulting from industrialization, that obstruct sunlight, coat rain droplets, and are inhaled by animals.4 Changes in atmosphere can be due to natural phenomena such as volcano eruptions and natural forest fires, but in general natural changes occur at a slow geologic pace which allows animal and plant evolutionary adaptation. Human effects occur more rapidly and do not permit gradual adjustments by living things.
