"Things Man Was Not Meant To Know"

[stoutfellow]

Note: I raised this question once on the Bujold list, with interesting if mixed results. I know many of those who read this journal are Bujold listies; if my returning to the subject bothers or bores you, I regret that. Not enough to refrain, mind you...

"Things Man was not meant to know" is a recurring theme in horror and in some science fiction (more in film than on paper). As far as I can tell, much if not most of the sf community finds the idea repellent, generally on the grounds that knowledge is a good thing. I agree with (an appropriately nuanced version of) that sentiment, but I've come to the conclusion that the concept can be reformulated in a plausible way, and I can nominate at least one good candidate for the role.

First, the knowledge in question has to have value. ("How could I destroy all life on the planet?" does not strike me as a useful or interesting question...)

Second, it has to be obtainable by the methods of some recognized science. (I don't want to argue about what constitutes science; let's cast a broad net.)

Third, although I doubt that the possession of knowledge can be, of itself, evil, it is certainly possible for the means by which the knowledge is obtained to be evil. (Cf., e.g., the "experiments" conducted by the likes of Dr. Mengele.) It is at least conceivable for a particular piece of knowledge to be unobtainable except via unethical experiments; this is the third criterion.

So, what I'm proposing as "Things Humanity Should Not Try to Discover" (updating the moldy old phrase) are the answers to any questions which, though of interest and scientifically resolvable, cannot be resolved by ethical means.

Under the cut, I have a candidate: Stanley Milgram's infamous experiments on obedience to authority. I'm curious if anyone can suggest another reasonable candidate, knock down mine by showing how such information could have been obtained ethically, or challenge my proposed criteria. Any takers?

Comments

[kd5mdk.livejournal.com]

First, the knowledge in question has to have value. ("How could I destroy all life on the planet?" does not strike me as a useful or interesting question...)


"What might threaten all life on the planet? How can I prevent these?"

I've been from time to time very curious about those experiments you mention. Particularly, how much are they integrated into current theories of psychology, and how comfortable are people with considering them when creating theories? It seems to me that valid data, once discovered, should be used whenever productive. At the same time, people are uncomfortable with this sort of data.

Your criteria seem to establish to me that there may exist a category of information which cannot be obtained by ethical means. However, is it possible that this information has a sufficiently important value that it should be obtained, even unethically?

One of the arguments against torture is that it is inherently unreliable, that prisoners being tortured will lie or invent stories in order to please their interregators. It would certainly be abhorrent to create a study which tortured people in order to test if this is a valid objection. At the same time, going off of my above statement that existing data should be retained regardless of origin, it seems you could do a study based off of some historically documented example of torture (the Algerian campaign seems reasonable, as depicted in "The Battle of Algiers"). You could examine transcripts of interregations, and compare the information gathered to what we now know of the resistance movement, etc. Now, is this information that ought to be discovered, given it doesn't involve any currently unethical actions?

[stoutfellow.livejournal.com]

I have no idea to what extent Milgram's work has been incorporated into current psychological theories. Some of the comments Marna made on-list suggest that the results are taken seriously, and that there's even been some follow-up work, but I don't know anything more than that.

is it possible that this information has a sufficiently important value that it should be obtained, even unethically?

That's a tough one. One difficulty, it seems to me, is this: how certain can you be, ahead of time, that the information will be of sufficiently high value? To commit an unethical act and make possible a great good may be defensible; to commit an unethical act and achieve nothing... Yes, the results can't be known without the attempt, but I'd be inclined to ask that all reasonably likely outcomes have high value, if the means are unethical. That's a high bar, I know, but - well, I'd look for something analogous to just war theory, frankly, and I want that bar to be high.

The other question you raise is a good one, and controversial. I understand that some researchers are - very gingerly - examining the results of some of the death-camp experiments to see if there's anything useful there, but there's been a certain amount of outcry against their doing so. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Even if the ethical questions are set aside, there's a real question as to the trustworthiness of the data.

An observational study of the results of torture might well be of interest, but observational studies, by their nature, are more vulnerable to hidden variables, confounding, and the like than true experiments are.

In both of these cases, then, we circle around to the same problem: however weak or strong the ethical objections to examining the data may be, are the likely results valuable enough, and reliable enough, to justify overriding them?

[hornedhopper.livejournal.com]

This is a very interesting topic, Stoutfellow.

Curiously enough, I found that very study you cite to be specifically informative when I saw the film of it in school (I can't remember if it was late grade school or high school), and it gave me an insight into human nature that I did not have at the time - naive perhaps, but I'm sure I wasn't the only one.

Until I saw it, I could never have imagined that ordinary Americans could have been capable of the cruelty practiced by certain Germans in WWII. I believed that the Holocaust was a horrible event, specific in nature to the time and the place. *After* having seen the documentary of the experiments, I understood that it could happen *anywhere* and under any circumstances unless individuals were personally aware of the dangers of "having permission" to do something that they believed was for the greater "good" (i.e., helping the poor learner correct his mistakes - or getting information in an interrogation...) and that said permission would relieve them of personal responsibility.

On a personal level, that particular experiment has made me check and recheck my assumptions, motivations, and actions throughout life.

I truly can't imagine that I would ever *do* something cruel, because I'm a "good" person, but until I saw the results of the experiment, I never knew it was possible for "good" people to commit evil with permission, when under other circumstances they would never dream of committing these acts. I'm sure most of the "teachers" thought they were good people, too.

So, I would therefore respectfully disagree with you that this was something that mankind did not need to know. I think we did and do - and had it not been so shocking, as the actions in the experiment, I don't think the lesson would have sunk in, as it did with me. In fact, I think maybe it should be shown again; maybe a new reality show...(NOT!)

[stoutfellow.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't deny the value of the information that was gained from the study. I think it's very good that we know this. (I seem to recall Marna mentioning that knowledge of this experiment was one of the strongest defences against succumbing to this kind of pressure.)

But the study itself caused significant psychological damage to the unwitting participants, even after they were debriefed and reassured that no-one had actually been harmed. No review board would approve such an experiment under present ethics guidelines. (In fact, as I understand it, today's guidelines were largely devised in response to this experiment.)

Hence the quandary: the information is valuable, and - now that we know it - it should be widely disseminated. But I can't see any way that that information could have been obtained ethically. Do you?

To put it another way: after the fact, the information is important. But before the fact, would the possibility of obtaining such important information justify carrying out such an experiment?

[hornedhopper.livejournal.com]

"(I seem to recall Marna mentioning that knowledge of this experiment was one of the strongest defences against succumbing to this kind of pressure.)"

'Zactly.

"But I can't see any way that that information could have been obtained ethically. Do you?"

Perhaps not. Because it needed the response of the individual to gauge the willingness to inflict pain without responsibility. It couldn't really be gauged in the abstract. Hmm. Being the concrete-minded person that I am, perhaps I can only ask myself if it would have been unethical if the experiment had been conducted on *me.* From my comfortable keyboard today (rather than in the uneviable position of being *filmed* supposedly committing atrocities), it's hard to say, really. I guess I *would* like to know that capability about myself, so that I could guard against any such behavior in the future. Of course, had the experiment only been conducted on me, then everyone would have had the satisfaction of knowing that *I* was a terrible person, not that they could also be persuaded to such action.

Do you know if the psychological harm was in the knowledge that they could have committed the pain infliction, or in the being publicly "caught in the act"? Or both?

[stoutfellow.livejournal.com]

Do you know if the psychological harm was in the knowledge that they could have committed the pain infliction, or in the being publicly "caught in the act"? Or both?

My understanding is the former, but I don't recall where I got that impression. I suspect it was in the textbook for a Statistics course I occasionally teach; if so, I should be able to locate it tomorrow.

[stoutfellow.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Here's an interesting link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment); scroll down to the section labeled "Reactions". This I did not know...

[hornedhopper.livejournal.com]

That *was* an interesting link.

I wonder about the motivations (conscious or unconscious) of the former participants who later wished to join Milgram's staff or somehow be part of the experiment. Could there have been a desire to atone for their acts? Or did they subconsciously wish to be part of the *Authority* and not the victims? Or maybe, they just found the whole topic of human psychology fascinating after experiencing directly lessons about themselves they had never imagined could be true.

On the topic of Things Mankind Should Not Take The Trouble To Learn, I came up with a couple, while wearing my Captain Obvious cap (g).

Just how *much* pain can a human endure before expiring?

Likewise, do men or women expire sooner?

Ditto for the animal experimentation that would precede trials on humans.

What innate coping skills do infants possess when deprived of any parental nurturing? I.e., isolating an infant, depriving it of human touch and interaction. It would be a REALLY icky researcher who could stomach this experiment.

These and other horrid research proposals brought to you by your sponsor, the Ethics-Free University (EF U)("When you really, really need to know something *now*!" (tm))

Sorry, couldn't resist - I'm in a silly mood (g)!