An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

SirJosephPorter

#1Sep 6th, 2009

I got the idea for this thread from one of Ron's post about experimentation by the Nazis. This is an unresolved paradox in science. Let me paint a vivid, lurid picture for you.

There is this brilliant, innovative scientist, let us call him doctor Mad. He is also filthy rich, another Bill Gates or Warren Buffet (let us say he inherited his wealth).

He has been working in seclusion in his estate on a small, remote island which he owns. After 20 years of painstaking research, he releases his results to the world, he has found a cure for cancer.

What he does is that he induces cancer in his human subjects (obtained by kidnapping, false promises etc.) and then treats them with his innovations. He releases DVDs showing all the gory details. Patients screaming from agony, writhing on the floor with pain etc. He shows distorted, misshapen bodies, limbs, with tumours sticking out of the body. He says that many of his patients die that way, by cancer induced by him.

But then he shows other DVDs, where there the same distorted misshapen bodies, patients in mortal agony. Then he shows the progressive improvements as a result of his cure, finally showing the completely cured patients. He says he had to sacrifice thousands of patients before he could find the cure. He gives the cure to the world for free, no charge.

Now, Dr. Mad will be charged with mass murder, with crime against humanity, convicted and sentenced, that is a given. But what should the world do about his invention, cure for cancer? Does the world adopt the cure, thereby tacitly approving what he did? Or does the world ignore the cure, thereby letting millions of cancer patients die every year, some of them in agony?

There is no answer to this dilemma, we can only hope that it never happens. If you or your loved one is stricken with terminal cancer, would you use Dr. Mad’s cure, thereby tacitly approving al the atrocities he committed?

CDNBear

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 6th, 2009

Use it. It's a simple answer.

Tonington

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 6th, 2009

Wouldn't you consider that their deaths were all in vain if the cure isn't used? As atrocious as that situation is, their deaths do produce something of great import.

CDNBear

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 6th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Wouldn't you consider that their deaths were all in vain if the cure isn't used? As atrocious as that situation is, their deaths do produce something of great import.

Bingo!

Tonington

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 6th, 2009

Also, it's not really a paradox of science. It's an ethics question. Might make a good one for medical school interviews.

CDNBear

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 6th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Also, it's not really a paradox of science. It's an ethics question. Might make a good one for medical school interviews.

Ain't that the truth.

It's not uncommon for Link to be incorrect.

VanIsle

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 6th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter

I got the idea for this thread from one of Ron's post about experimentation by the Nazis. This is an unresolved paradox in science. Let me paint a vivid, lurid picture for you.
There is this brilliant, innovative scientist, let us call him doctor Mad. He is also filthy rich, another Bill Gates or Warren Buffet (let us say he inherited his wealth).
He has been working in seclusion in his estate on a small, remote island which he owns. After 20 years of painstaking research, he releases his results to the world, he has found a cure for cancer.
What he does is that he induces cancer in his human subjects (obtained by kidnapping, false promises etc.) and then treats them with his innovations. He releases DVDs showing all the gory details. Patients screaming from agony, writhing on the floor with pain etc. He shows distorted, misshapen bodies, limbs, with tumours sticking out of the body. He says that many of his patients die that way, by cancer induced by him.
But then he shows other DVDs, where there the same distorted misshapen bodies, patients in mortal agony. Then he shows the progressive improvements as a result of his cure, finally showing the completely cured patients. He says he had to sacrifice thousands of patients before he could find the cure. He gives the cure to the world for free, no charge.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post:

Using crime as a means to an end does not absolve the criminal. He still commited murder and must pay for the crime. It's like using religion as a reason for war. He used "science" as a reason to kill.

ironsides

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 6th, 2009

It would be criminal for the world not to adopt the cure. Tell Doctor Mad what ever it take to get hold of the cure then lock him up. It is for the greater good that we use the cure.

AnnaG

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 6th, 2009

roflmao
As the testing had already been done, unethical as it was, there would be no rational grounds for not using the cure. Try reading "Frankenstein" or "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde". Your "dilemma" has been around for a long time.
BTW, there are cures for cancers. There are many cancers.

AnnaG

#10

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 6th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Wouldn't you consider that their deaths were all in vain if the cure isn't used? As atrocious as that situation is, their deaths do produce something of great import.

Exactly.

karrie

#11

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 6th, 2009

well, I can't read the OP, what with having the poster on ignore and all, but, from what I see quoted by VanIsle, it seems pretty straight forward.

Amend for those deaths by putting the man through the justice system, and use the cure to do good. Simple. I don't see how it's a conundrum for any reasoning human being.

AnnaG

#12

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 6th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter

I got the idea for this thread from one of Ron's post about experimentation by the Nazis. This is an unresolved paradox in science. Let me paint a vivid, lurid picture for you.
There is this brilliant, innovative scientist, let us call him doctor Mad. He is also filthy rich, another Bill Gates or Warren Buffet (let us say he inherited his wealth).
He has been working in seclusion in his estate on a small, remote island which he owns. After 20 years of painstaking research, he releases his results to the world, he has found a cure for cancer.
What he does is that he induces cancer in his human subjects (obtained by kidnapping, false promises etc.) and then treats them with his innovations. He releases DVDs showing all the gory details. Patients screaming from agony, writhing on the floor with pain etc. He shows distorted, misshapen bodies, limbs, with tumours sticking out of the body. He says that many of his patients die that way, by cancer induced by him.
But then he shows other DVDs, where there the same distorted misshapen bodies, patients in mortal agony. Then he shows the progressive improvements as a result of his cure, finally showing the completely cured patients. He says he had to sacrifice thousands of patients before he could find the cure. He gives the cure to the world for free, no charge.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post:

Here you go, Karrie.

earth_as_one

#13

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 6th, 2009

Most of what we know about treating hypothermia is based on Nazi experiments conducted on people, many of whom perished during the "experiments".
--

People can be good or evil. Knowledge and science is neutral.

gerryh

#14

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 6th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by karrie

I don't see how it's a conundrum for any reasoning human being.

and theres the problem right there.

AnnaG

#15

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 7th, 2009

Quote:

Quoting karrie I don't see how it's a conundrum for any reasoning human being.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh

and theres the problem right there.

lol.

Niflmir

#16

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 7th, 2009

This hypothetical implies that the cure could not have been found without diabolical means. Of course we would use the cure, but imprison the scientist. There are more ethical ways of achieving the same thing, and we need to send the message that those means are wrong.

There is no shortage of people with natural cancer, for instance.

SirJosephPorter

#17

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 7th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir

This hypothetical implies that the cure could not have been found without diabolical means. Of course we would use the cure, but imprison the scientist. There are more ethical ways of achieving the same thing, and we need to send the message that those means are wrong.

There is no shortage of people with natural cancer, for instance.

Sure there are ethical ways of doing it, but then there would be no dilemma. Anyway, the consensus seems to be that the cure should be used, so I am free to argue the other side.

SirJosephPorter

#18

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 7th, 2009

There indeed are two sides to the issue. The question is, does the end justify the means? If somebody achieves desirable results, does that mean that what they did to achieve that end was justified?

Bush did get a lot of heat just for that reason; he was accused of torturing the Al Qaeda prisoners. Bush associates claim that they got useful information out of the torture (and they claimed they don’t torture anyway). But is the torture justified if useful information is obtained by it? Some say yes, some say no. It is not an easy question to answer.

SirJosephPorter

#19

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 7th, 2009

Another aspect is, what message does that send to other mad scientists? If his cure is accepted, will that encourage other mad scientists? The scientists who perhaps don’t have the brilliance, inventiveness of Dr. Mad, but have the same thirst, same desire to torture, to maim, to kill.

The cancer cure will be commonly known as Dr. Mad’s cure, and eventually Dr. Mad will be remembered as the benefactor of humanity, somebody who saved millions of lives (while perhaps destroying, killing a few thousand in the process). That may well encourage other mad scientists to move ahead with their insane schemes involving torture, killing of patients (perhaps with no end results to show for it).

SirJosephPorter

#20

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 7th, 2009

And finally, is it permissible to use up human beings, to kill human lives that way in order for the greater good, in order to save millions? The prolifers would say no. They are currently opposed to fetal tissue research (research on fetal tissue obtained from abortion), embryonic stem cell research etc.

Their claim is that using aborted fetuses of research cheapens the human life, makes it more acceptable to kill (get an abortion) and therefore must not be permitted. While I don’t’ agree with that position, I can certainly see their point. I imagine prolifers would be strongly opposed to using the cure, because it cheapens the human life. The fact that it cures the cancer does not justify its use. The fact that fetal tissue research or embryonic stem cell research may lead to the cure of diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease etc. does not sway them in the least.

I can see people holding passionate views on both sides of the issue. We are progressive, liberal here in Canada, so we probably will come to a speedy resolution of the issue (like we did with same sex marriage or abortion). But in USA, they will be arguing for decades whether the cure should be used, without coming to any resolution.

In fact, it probably will be the abortion debate all over again, with Republican presidents banning the use of Dr. Mad’s cure, while Democratic presidents permitting it. Same as currently Republican presidents ban the use of federal money for stem cell research or fetal tissue research.

I don’t think there is a good answer to the dilemma, one must choose the lesser of two evils. Either one must accept the cure (thereby cheapening human life, perhaps encouraging other mad scientists, and turning an abomination of a human being into a hero, a Savior of mankind) or reject the cure (thereby letting millions die who would otherwise have lived).

As I said, the only solution is to hope that it doesn’t happen.

SirJosephPorter

#21

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 7th, 2009

As to whether I would personally accept the cure, that would depend upon the circumstances. If I had terminal cancer myself, I probably would not use the cure. I have lived full life, I must die some time (if not now in 5, 10, 20 years), and I wouldn’t want the torture and death of several thousand human beings on my conscious.

On the other hand, if my wife gets terminal cancer, I might be tempted to use the cure. If that happen in 20 years’ time (when we will both be around eighty), probably not.

But if our son is stricken with cancer, there is no question, I definitely would support the use of the cure. My son is more important than anything else, than any ethical consideration. So it depends upon the circumstances.

Niflmir

#22

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 7th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter

There indeed are two sides to the issue. The question is, does the end justify the means? If somebody achieves desirable results, does that mean that what they did to achieve that end was justified?

Bush did get a lot of heat just for that reason; he was accused of torturing the Al Qaeda prisoners. Bush associates claim that they got useful information out of the torture (and they claimed they don’t torture anyway). But is the torture justified if useful information is obtained by it? Some say yes, some say no. It is not an easy question to answer.

Using the cure in no way implies that the ends justifies the means. Not imprisoning said scientist would mean that the end justifies the means.

Everyone here is saying the end does not justify the means. Everyone here is saying they would still use the cure. Nobody seems to see a dilemma there, because there is not one.

If I steal money to buy bread to feed my family, do you make them throw up the bread when you catch me? No, you throw me in prison; there are better ways to make money or get bread.

SirJosephPorter

#23

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 7th, 2009

Everyone here is saying the end does not justify the means. Everyone here is saying they would still use the cure. Nobody seems to see a dilemma there, because there is not one.

Nobody is going to say that end justifies the means, Niflmir. But that is how some would see it. It is the same argument prolifers advance during stem cell debate. They say that using stem cell in research justifies abortion, it at least gives the impression of the end justifying the means.

Nobody has to say that explicitly. But if the cure is accepted, if Dr. Mad comes to be knows as the Saviour of humankind (and after several decades he will, his atrocities will pass into history, his cure will endure), some will interpret it to mean that end justifies the means.

Liberalman

#24

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 7th, 2009

I am sure that all the experiments were repeated on mice by now where the scientists came to the same conclusion as Dr. Mad.

They would never admit this but this would be considered experiment laundering which converts experiments through torture to clean experiments

SirJosephPorter

#25

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 7th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir

If I steal money to buy bread to feed my family, do you make them throw up the bread when you catch me? No, you throw me in prison; there are better ways to make money or get bread.

Niflmir, that is not a fair analogy to Dr. Mad, for two reasons. One is that during stealing of the bread, nobody was hurt. The second is that here the cure has already been administered, in that the bread has already been eaten.

Let me give you an appropriate analogy. Suppose during the act of stealing, you shoot and kill the store owner. When you are caught, bread is found in your possession. You explain to the cops that your family has been starving, your children have not eaten for days. You stole the bread for them.

Now the question is, should the bread be given to your children, because they are starving? The bread properly belongs to the store owner. This is the proper analogy, because here again you have to choose the lesser of two evils. The dilemma is, if the bread is given to the rightful owner, your children starve, while if bread is given to your children, the rightful owner is deprived of his property and he may well sue the police department for doing so.

SirJosephPorter

#26

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 7th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Liberalman

I am sure that all the experiments were repeated on mice by now where the scientists came to the same conclusion as Dr. Mad.

They would never admit this but this would be considered experiment laundering which converts experiments through torture to clean experiments

Indeed, Liberalman, this is the other side that I was talking about. I know you re prolife, and you took what I consider to be the prolife position in this case. There are no easy answers.

ironsides

#27

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 7th, 2009

To the millions he saved, he would a hero immediately. The big question is did anyone have knowledge of what he was doing during the experimental phase and did nothing, or did the world find out how he obtained his results after they started using this miracle treatment. Then the question what to do with him would arise. If he is dead, how should he be remembered.

SirJosephPorter

#28

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 7th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides

To the millions he saved, he would a hero immediately. The big question is did anyone have knowledge of what he was doing during the experimental phase and did nothing, or did the world find out how he obtained his results after they started using this miracle treatment. Then the question what to do with him would arise. If he is dead, how should he be remembered.

Ironsides, in my scenario (I want to make it as difficult ethically as possible), the world did not know what he was doing while he did his research, he was working on his estate on a remote island which he owned.

But then he explained to the world what he did, explained all the torture (inducing cancer in a healthy human being is torture) and killing he did. Then he offered the cure to the world.

So the world is aware of his atrocities before the cure is used. And of course the cure cannot be used immediately anyway, there is the process of FDA approval etc. Some drug company has to manufacture it on a large scale. So yes, the world is aware of the atrocities before the cure is ever used.

Then the question is, should it be used? By that of course I mean, should a company be given license to manufacture it, should FDA give it an approval, should the doctors conduct trials to verify his results etc.

ironsides

#29

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 7th, 2009

By your scenario, he is a madman and should be locked up for treatment. The cure still should be used and not be ignored, it is to important. Yes, get it licensed and to those who need it ASAP.

Niflmir

#30

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Sep 7th, 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter

One is that during stealing of the bread, nobody was hurt.

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter

stealing, nobody hurt.

What? Stealing doesn't hurt people? Okay, consider yourself robbed.

Evidence dispute unresolved as Air India inquiry set to resume
by CBC News | Mar 4th, 2007

Five Paradox!!! I need your help!
by Semperfi_dani | May 7th, 2006

Science not pseudo-science needed
by Calberty | Jan 19th, 2006

An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Re: An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

Similar Threads