Although science itself is a method involving observation, experimentation, replication, and so forth. It also involves the sharing and the application of the results of that knowledge.
The people who do science are scientists. Their work may be motivated by anything, but it is so generally motivated by a regard for bettering human existence that it seems trite to mention it. Other people may misuse the knowledge gained from scientific investigation; but the scientific community generally considers the point and ethical ramifications of their work.. Anything which has no value for people is not likely to be pursued. For instance, research scientists could try to develop a drug that will make a chicken lay eggs that have no shells, but they would not waste their time on something which seems useless and wasteful to human existence.
So I would say that the practice of science has a buit-in bias towards usefulness and value, simply because it is a method which is practiced by people; and most people capable of properly doing scientific work are likely people motivated by ethical human concerns such as cooperation, sharing, and improving the common lot.
I think when conditions of existence are improved, that there is a general tendency to prey less on the misery or weakness of others. Much theft, assault, and petty crime occurs among the impoverished, the uneducated, and the unconnected. Science is generally used to promote the betterment of people, and I think this easing of hardship may correspond to a higher sense of social cooperation and ethical interaction: ergo, better people. Just my opinion.
I don't think it is meaningful to separate the science from the scientist, any more than it is to separate the novel from the writer. A good book will change people. So will science. |
