"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

[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)!