Humans are not unique in their ability to identify the consequences of their actions, and you claimed that even identifying the most rudimentary consequences of your actions = science. Humans are just animals, why don't the other species count if they are doing exactly the same thing as us?
Because the social dynamics of different social species are quite unique to those species.
And just because I gave rudimentary examples, to make it simple and short, doesn't mean that I'm only talking about that.
There's a lot that science informs us about which aren't all that obvious in "rudimentary" knowledge.
Obviously one doesn't require a scientific experiment or background or study to figure out that falling from great height will not end well - and thus pushing someone of a cliff as a prank isn't a good idea.
We humans have this thing called science and the ability to use science to learn about the world. That knowledge informs us concerning consequences of actions. In turn, that helps us in making better moral decisions / judgements.
A wolf would benefit from additional knowledge to, but a wolf doesn't have the ability or means to gain it. We do.
Even if we arbitrarily insist that only one species of animal is allowed to do science
Who said anything about being "allowed" to do science?
I don't think it is helpful to water down the concept to such a degree that babies begin doing science the second they are born.
In a sense, they do, actually. They explore their world and do "experiments" all the time, trying to figure out how things work, how things react, etc. That's obviously not science in the academic sense. But it's certainly a process of learning through experimentation.
That doesn't mean we have to accept that basically every human activity constitutes science though.
Who said it was?
If we redefine science to be so all encompassing that it becomes functionally meaningless, we also accept that science contributes a great deal to immoral acts.
Who redefined science to be all encompassing?
ALL I said was that through science, we learn about the world. And the more we know about the world, the better informed we are and the better we become at making decisions (moral and otherwise).
You object to this?
You don't think that have a better understanding of how the world works, and thus have a better / more accurate understanding what the consequences of some action is, would help us in better moral decision making?
We would also have to accept that things like child rapes are not only motivated by science, they are scientific experiments in their own right.
Wut?
You seem all over the place, except on point of what I actually said..
Every time someone was killed in a war it was a scientific experiment. Every time someone did anything with the intent of harming another physically or mentally they would have been doing science.
Again, wut?
Where do you come up with this stuff? Certainly not from anything I said.
I never said anything remotely like that, nore implied it.
I have no clue what you are on about.
If you value scientific knowledge and understanding, redefining science to make it by far the biggest source of evil in human history just doesn't seem like the most rational thing to do in my book.
Show me where I redefined science in such a way.
Or redefined science, full stop.
Once more: ALL I said, was that science informs us about how the world works and that this understanding helps us better understand the consequences of our actions, which in turn allow for better decision making and moral evaluation.
That's it.
