On a different note, I don't know how to make lists of friends.
Someone please rescue me from this friendless state. :-(
I'm just no good at navigating computers, period.
Monday, February 5, 2007
1. What are the presuppositions of science?
Although science is considered one of the most factual fields of study (second only to math), all the logic and careful, meticulous data-gathering rests on one major supposition that, if incorrect, throws all scientific process to heck. Namely, that we can trust our observations; that everything we study can be perceived by one of our five senses and recorded. One gigantic step in the scientific process is termed "experimentation." We decide our experiment results by what we observe. If we can't trust even that, then what's left?
2. Is the scientific process fundamentally flawed?
Yes it is. The answer to number one applies here as well.
3. What, if anything, does science owe society?
Ethics: the thing we owe each other, scientists or no. As far as progress goes, it depends on how much tax money they are being funded by...
4. Is science controllable? Should it be? If so, by whom?
The study itself? Absolutely. That's what experimentation rests on. What is being studied? To a degree: we may manipulate it, but we can't truly create or destroy it (so goes the common belief of today).
5. Why is "Why?" such an uncomfortable question?
One can find the "why" to one question which shakes the foundations of an entirely seperate belief, which could in turn cause another presupposition to be questioned....
What if it all travels to the root of everything you think you know, only to destroy it and make you start all over again?
It's terrifying.
6. How does science relate to our discussion of reality in the first week?
Again, this relates back to questions one and two.
7. It used to be that being a scientist was a big deal! People respected scientists. People valued a scientist's opinion and input. There were few professions more noble than dedicating your life to the advancement of science - not even being a medical doctor was more important! Our modern perception of a scientist is a pasty colored white male with thick glasses, a pocket protector, and no social skills. No one wants their opinion, let alone respects their opinion. Even you, as a class, expressed distrust of NASA - the US's leading science machine - and doubt in the value of the science being conducted by the organization. What changed? Can you point to a specific era in time? Why do we listen more to Al Gore than we do to leading scientist in climatology, biology and environmental science?
Now it's no longer a matter of the mysterious wizards bringing magic to the masses in the form of lightbulbs and steam engines. Each successive generation has more insight into the scientific process than the last, and greater knowledge leads to greater skepticism. I'm not saying that we know anything near what the professionals do, but we know more than we used to.
Can you find evidence of Kuhn's essential tension in a current scientific topic? Non-scientific topic? Discuss why changing paradigms is so traumatic.
8. Discuss any recent or current event (last 30 years say) where science and society have not been in step.
Stem cell research!!!! Science sees it as a grand opportunity to expand knowledge, while many regular folk outside the field look on it unclouded by the passion of exploration and see the actions for what they are: the murder of premature babies.
Some say that science is free of passion, but I beg to differ. It's full of the blinding passion of pure logic.
By the way, a study is being done on amniotic fluid, which may turn out to be an ethically sounds alternative to stem cells. Check it out: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070108-stem-cells.html
Although science is considered one of the most factual fields of study (second only to math), all the logic and careful, meticulous data-gathering rests on one major supposition that, if incorrect, throws all scientific process to heck. Namely, that we can trust our observations; that everything we study can be perceived by one of our five senses and recorded. One gigantic step in the scientific process is termed "experimentation." We decide our experiment results by what we observe. If we can't trust even that, then what's left?
2. Is the scientific process fundamentally flawed?
Yes it is. The answer to number one applies here as well.
3. What, if anything, does science owe society?
Ethics: the thing we owe each other, scientists or no. As far as progress goes, it depends on how much tax money they are being funded by...
4. Is science controllable? Should it be? If so, by whom?
The study itself? Absolutely. That's what experimentation rests on. What is being studied? To a degree: we may manipulate it, but we can't truly create or destroy it (so goes the common belief of today).
5. Why is "Why?" such an uncomfortable question?
One can find the "why" to one question which shakes the foundations of an entirely seperate belief, which could in turn cause another presupposition to be questioned....
What if it all travels to the root of everything you think you know, only to destroy it and make you start all over again?
It's terrifying.
6. How does science relate to our discussion of reality in the first week?
Again, this relates back to questions one and two.
7. It used to be that being a scientist was a big deal! People respected scientists. People valued a scientist's opinion and input. There were few professions more noble than dedicating your life to the advancement of science - not even being a medical doctor was more important! Our modern perception of a scientist is a pasty colored white male with thick glasses, a pocket protector, and no social skills. No one wants their opinion, let alone respects their opinion. Even you, as a class, expressed distrust of NASA - the US's leading science machine - and doubt in the value of the science being conducted by the organization. What changed? Can you point to a specific era in time? Why do we listen more to Al Gore than we do to leading scientist in climatology, biology and environmental science?
Now it's no longer a matter of the mysterious wizards bringing magic to the masses in the form of lightbulbs and steam engines. Each successive generation has more insight into the scientific process than the last, and greater knowledge leads to greater skepticism. I'm not saying that we know anything near what the professionals do, but we know more than we used to.
Can you find evidence of Kuhn's essential tension in a current scientific topic? Non-scientific topic? Discuss why changing paradigms is so traumatic.
8. Discuss any recent or current event (last 30 years say) where science and society have not been in step.
Stem cell research!!!! Science sees it as a grand opportunity to expand knowledge, while many regular folk outside the field look on it unclouded by the passion of exploration and see the actions for what they are: the murder of premature babies.
Some say that science is free of passion, but I beg to differ. It's full of the blinding passion of pure logic.
By the way, a study is being done on amniotic fluid, which may turn out to be an ethically sounds alternative to stem cells. Check it out: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070108-stem-cells.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
