1. Why does the director feel that Unorthodoxy is worse than Murder? What does the Director want to do with Bernard Marx?
Because murder merely affects an individual, and the individual is nothing in this society, while unorthodox behavior affects the entire community, which is everything, and can have negative effects on the society as a whole, which would destroy many lives; kill one to save a thousand.
2. What surprise does Bernard bring to the Director?
He bring the director Linda, and he brings the director the baby the director and Linda had in the reservation.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Journal Response
Science as it is meant to be practiced is about facts, but as it is actually practiced, Science veers away from facts and the scientists begin to manipulate the data for themselves. The facts aren’t always seen as good things. If you’re trying to prove one thing and your evidence shows something else, you won’t be able to continue studying that for long. But, if your data supports your hypothesis, you just might be awarded more money, and be able to continue your study.
And Science isn’t immune to politics or religion. There have been occasions where the data points one way, whereas their beliefs or movement tell them something else, and they side with their beliefs. For example, the article gives the example of Copernicus; he removed Earth from the center of the universe, but did NOT put the sun there, because his beliefs told him that God preferred circular orbits to convoluted circles in circles which it would be if he had put the sun at the center. Also the article gives the example where the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty condemned Bjorn Lomborg for publishing The Skeptical Environmentalist, in which he stated that industrialized countries protect the environment whereas poor countries tend to destroy it. He was later exonerated by the Danish Ministry of Science who condemned the committee for “unsatisfactory and emotional conduct deserving of criticism.” I myself am guilty of this. In some physics labs I’ve done, there has been anomalous data that doesn’t fit with the rest, and I’ve thrown it out before, to keep the experiment simple and the conclusion to the point.
So there is always the possibility of the scientist corrupting the nature of science, but the idea of science, and ideal science, does lie within the realm of facts.
And Science isn’t immune to politics or religion. There have been occasions where the data points one way, whereas their beliefs or movement tell them something else, and they side with their beliefs. For example, the article gives the example of Copernicus; he removed Earth from the center of the universe, but did NOT put the sun there, because his beliefs told him that God preferred circular orbits to convoluted circles in circles which it would be if he had put the sun at the center. Also the article gives the example where the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty condemned Bjorn Lomborg for publishing The Skeptical Environmentalist, in which he stated that industrialized countries protect the environment whereas poor countries tend to destroy it. He was later exonerated by the Danish Ministry of Science who condemned the committee for “unsatisfactory and emotional conduct deserving of criticism.” I myself am guilty of this. In some physics labs I’ve done, there has been anomalous data that doesn’t fit with the rest, and I’ve thrown it out before, to keep the experiment simple and the conclusion to the point.
So there is always the possibility of the scientist corrupting the nature of science, but the idea of science, and ideal science, does lie within the realm of facts.
Dogs shows promise in taking down cancers
1.)It presents the idea that dogs can smell cancer and assist in early detection of cancer.
2.)It utilizes authority based of the idea of the scientists being an authority figure
3.)Reason- The Scientists' reports use an amount of reason to come to thier conclusion
Language- The conclusion had to dbe conveyed some way
Emotion- A new detection method of cancer would be a monumental victory in the fight against cancer
Perception- The point of view of the scientists is their perception and you see the article through your point of view
The science of medicine is a natural science and the social sciences apply as well- you see what you want
4.) Yes there are results for 2 different studies in which the results aren't even given, but they say they support the claims, and the info on the other studies is vague at best.
5.)Should be peer-reviewed, and tried to prove wrong
6.)I don't believe in the idea presented in this article, due to the lack of evidence presented.
2.)It utilizes authority based of the idea of the scientists being an authority figure
3.)Reason- The Scientists' reports use an amount of reason to come to thier conclusion
Language- The conclusion had to dbe conveyed some way
Emotion- A new detection method of cancer would be a monumental victory in the fight against cancer
Perception- The point of view of the scientists is their perception and you see the article through your point of view
The science of medicine is a natural science and the social sciences apply as well- you see what you want
4.) Yes there are results for 2 different studies in which the results aren't even given, but they say they support the claims, and the info on the other studies is vague at best.
5.)Should be peer-reviewed, and tried to prove wrong
6.)I don't believe in the idea presented in this article, due to the lack of evidence presented.
Who says Science is about Facts?
What is Karl Popper's main argument?
His main argument was that Freud's assertion that an ego meditates between an id and a superego is invalid, because they are of the subconscious and therefore cannot be tested.
Who was his primary enemy?
Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx
Is Popper correct?
He was correct at the time, as there was no known method to observe the subconscious, but recent studies suggest it may be possible.
His main argument was that Freud's assertion that an ego meditates between an id and a superego is invalid, because they are of the subconscious and therefore cannot be tested.
Who was his primary enemy?
Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx
Is Popper correct?
He was correct at the time, as there was no known method to observe the subconscious, but recent studies suggest it may be possible.
Ideal Science
Ideals of Science:
Bias-less (rarely)
objective (sometimes)
A process:
Observation
Prediction
Testing
Results
Conclusion
Free of Social constraints (rarely)
Free of political influence (even rarer)
Independent of Religion (usually)
Bias-less (rarely)
objective (sometimes)
A process:
Observation
Prediction
Testing
Results
Conclusion
Free of Social constraints (rarely)
Free of political influence (even rarer)
Independent of Religion (usually)
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Abel Chapter 10
1. How does Science explain a fact? Please use the entire explanation on. p. 91 and 92.
Science explains fact by embedding it in a general law from which the fact to be explained can be logically deduced. The particular fact is explained by being comprehended under, and derived from, a general law.
Science explains fact by embedding it in a general law from which the fact to be explained can be logically deduced. The particular fact is explained by being comprehended under, and derived from, a general law.
2. What are some common misconceptions about scientific explanations? How does Abel refute each one?
That science merely describes, but doesn't explain; and he refutes this by stating that there is no clear line between explanation and description. Also that science explains the strange with the familiar, but typically is the reverse. And that scientific explanation is not the same as understanding, but understanding is more like knowledge by acquaintance than science. A scientific explanation need not be a casual law, but can be a simultaneous existence.
That science merely describes, but doesn't explain; and he refutes this by stating that there is no clear line between explanation and description. Also that science explains the strange with the familiar, but typically is the reverse. And that scientific explanation is not the same as understanding, but understanding is more like knowledge by acquaintance than science. A scientific explanation need not be a casual law, but can be a simultaneous existence.
3. What does Abel mean when he says: "a law in turn may be explained by another law of wider scope; the greater the generality, the better the explanation." (p. 93)?
That the wider the scope of the law, the better the explanation of the event is. The wider the scope the more it incorporates and the more elegant the explanation.
That the wider the scope of the law, the better the explanation of the event is. The wider the scope the more it incorporates and the more elegant the explanation.
4. What does Abel mean when he says: "Explanation is always relative to a given knowledge situation; you must stop somewhere." (p. 94)?
He means that you can't explain everything relating to one situation; you've gotta pick the most important features and explain them.
He means that you can't explain everything relating to one situation; you've gotta pick the most important features and explain them.
5. Why are explanatory reductions "economical ways of describing phenomena." (p. 95)?
Because they explain only what is necessary, and avoid going off on tangents.
Because they explain only what is necessary, and avoid going off on tangents.
6. Why does scientific explanation require the concept of system?
Because that concept of system allows the integration of various laws, and as all things interact in the world, it follows that they would in science.
Because that concept of system allows the integration of various laws, and as all things interact in the world, it follows that they would in science.
7. Why is the theory of emergence used to explain how anything new came into the world? What counter-claim does Abel provide?
Because there is the lack of any other explanation, and able points out that even this is unable to predict most emerging elements.
Because there is the lack of any other explanation, and able points out that even this is unable to predict most emerging elements.
8. Why is theory and observation interdependent in scientific explanations?
Because nearly all theories require observations to gain evidence for the theories and observations are explained by theories.
Because nearly all theories require observations to gain evidence for the theories and observations are explained by theories.
9. Why is explanation in science theoretically identical to prediction? How does Abel feel about this?
Explanation is theoretically identical to prediction because they both explain a phenomena, but Abel feels that as you don't need a prediciton for a good explanation, there is a difference.
Explanation is theoretically identical to prediction because they both explain a phenomena, but Abel feels that as you don't need a prediciton for a good explanation, there is a difference.
10. What does Abel mean when he says: 'The growth of science is not a clear-cut, straightforward progression toward a unique, all-inclusive final truth." (p. 100)?
He means that science is not a strait shot, but rather many different fronts progressing down many different corridors, not necessarily aware of the others, and never seeking an all encompassing truth.
He means that science is not a strait shot, but rather many different fronts progressing down many different corridors, not necessarily aware of the others, and never seeking an all encompassing truth.
11. According to Abel, what situations are seen by scientists as requiring explanation?
Things that seem natural, or new, things that seem to defy the common knowledge, or everyday things that we may think are explained but aren't.
Things that seem natural, or new, things that seem to defy the common knowledge, or everyday things that we may think are explained but aren't.
12. What is the role of the human element in the progress of scientific explanation?
What we search for. In the end, science provides answers for our questions and our problems, and we're always limited by what we see, and what we perceive a being able to be studied; we will always be limited by our biological limitations.
What we search for. In the end, science provides answers for our questions and our problems, and we're always limited by what we see, and what we perceive a being able to be studied; we will always be limited by our biological limitations.
13. Abel claims that: "Our perceptual knowledge is delimited by our characteristic biological capacities, and there are limits to the completeness of our theoretical structures. But our observations and our theories mutually reinforce each other....The structure of our science is pragmatically justified; it is the most reliable knowledge there is." (p. 105) Does this hold true in History as well?
I believe it does. We aren't going to investigate things that we have no interest in, we search for what we want, and answer the questions we ask. If we don't have any interest in it, it doesn't get studied.
I believe it does. We aren't going to investigate things that we have no interest in, we search for what we want, and answer the questions we ask. If we don't have any interest in it, it doesn't get studied.
14. In Bullet form, and using information from this chapter and Chapter 15 (you wrote Study Questions on November 9), please list the similarities and differences between Scientific and Historical explanations.
- Both explain events
- One attempts to answer questions about the nature of things
- while the other about events in the past
- Both have established processes to go about finding the answers
- yet the processes are different
- both use investigative methods to answer their questions
- but again use different methods
Monday, December 7, 2009
Brave New World Chapter 9
1. What did Lenina do when she got back to the rest-house?
She took a huge dose of soma and gets high for the rest of the day into the afternoon of the next day.
2. What does Bernard ask his Fordship, Mustapha Mond?
If he could study John away from the conservatory; try to introduce him into the society at large.
3. What does John say when he is by Lenina's bedside? Why is this significant?
He says "Her eyes" which is significant because he feels especially drawn by her eyes and her eyes are similar to those of Linda.
She took a huge dose of soma and gets high for the rest of the day into the afternoon of the next day.
2. What does Bernard ask his Fordship, Mustapha Mond?
If he could study John away from the conservatory; try to introduce him into the society at large.
3. What does John say when he is by Lenina's bedside? Why is this significant?
He says "Her eyes" which is significant because he feels especially drawn by her eyes and her eyes are similar to those of Linda.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Essay
“People need to believe that order can be glimpsed in the chaos of events” (Adapted from John Gray, Heresies, 2004). In what ways and to what extent would you say this claim is relevant in at least two areas of knowledge?
This quote is heavily relevant to all the areas of knowledge, but particularly to history and social sciences. In both the social sciences and history, there are numerous examples of patterns being discovered and applied to these respective fields.
In History, the historian is seeking to discover a pattern in the events of the past. Events that are not necessarily related, yet which are seen in an overall pattern. These events may not be related to each other. Yet in history there are various theories on the impact of certain events and patterns that have emerged throughout history. There are a great number of theories that exist as how history has developed in regards to a pattern: some see a steady march towards progress, while others see an endless cycle. These theories have come about as the result of fruitful study, yet have a fundamental weakness. The fact that there exist so many different interpretations of human history calls into question the validity of these “patterns.” There is a fundamental concept at work here that must not be misunderstood. Each historian coming up with these patterns is influenced by their respective specializations; a historian studying societies throughout the later part of the 19th century and the 20th century may remark that history shows an un ending march towards progress, yet there have been numerous halts to “progress” and soviet historians said their state and communism was the culmination and eventual objective of this pattern, and yet the Soviet Union fell over 20 years ago.
This is also true in the study of the social sciences. Every study that is done has the purpose of finding a pattern among the behavior of humans, and this quote is very relevant to these studies, as the purpose of these studies; psychology, anthropology, etc. aim to discover patterns in the “chaos of events” that society or the human mind is. The fact that the studies aim to discover patterns immediately make the above quote very relevant to the social studies.
For example, a social scientist studying the correlation between two social factors is looking for a pattern between the two. The social sciences almost expressly follow this quote, as they are always looking for a pattern or connection in events, even though sometimes there just isn’t a pattern.
The basis of this quote is contained within both of these areas of knowledge, and the idea of patterns in the chaos of events is inherent in both. History tends to focus exclusively on the past, while social sciences focus both on past and present patterns. In both there is the study of the effect of one event on another, the relation between events, and a pattern in the occurrences of something, whether it be a society or a battle.
In History, the investigation of a subject is limited in the way knowledge is gained, but all four ways of knowing are relevant in this area, as well as in the social sciences. In both History and the Social Sciences, information is conveyed and gained through Perception, Reason, Language and Emotion. For example, in history, I have used Perception to perceive the paper, Language to read it and Reason to analyze it. Sometimes you even use Emotion to gain knowledge, when someone’s done something particularly bad or something bad’s happened. The same process occurs in the social sciences.
This quote is heavily relevant to all the areas of knowledge, but particularly to history and social sciences. In both the social sciences and history, there are numerous examples of patterns being discovered and applied to these respective fields.
In History, the historian is seeking to discover a pattern in the events of the past. Events that are not necessarily related, yet which are seen in an overall pattern. These events may not be related to each other. Yet in history there are various theories on the impact of certain events and patterns that have emerged throughout history. There are a great number of theories that exist as how history has developed in regards to a pattern: some see a steady march towards progress, while others see an endless cycle. These theories have come about as the result of fruitful study, yet have a fundamental weakness. The fact that there exist so many different interpretations of human history calls into question the validity of these “patterns.” There is a fundamental concept at work here that must not be misunderstood. Each historian coming up with these patterns is influenced by their respective specializations; a historian studying societies throughout the later part of the 19th century and the 20th century may remark that history shows an un ending march towards progress, yet there have been numerous halts to “progress” and soviet historians said their state and communism was the culmination and eventual objective of this pattern, and yet the Soviet Union fell over 20 years ago.
This is also true in the study of the social sciences. Every study that is done has the purpose of finding a pattern among the behavior of humans, and this quote is very relevant to these studies, as the purpose of these studies; psychology, anthropology, etc. aim to discover patterns in the “chaos of events” that society or the human mind is. The fact that the studies aim to discover patterns immediately make the above quote very relevant to the social studies.
For example, a social scientist studying the correlation between two social factors is looking for a pattern between the two. The social sciences almost expressly follow this quote, as they are always looking for a pattern or connection in events, even though sometimes there just isn’t a pattern.
The basis of this quote is contained within both of these areas of knowledge, and the idea of patterns in the chaos of events is inherent in both. History tends to focus exclusively on the past, while social sciences focus both on past and present patterns. In both there is the study of the effect of one event on another, the relation between events, and a pattern in the occurrences of something, whether it be a society or a battle.
In History, the investigation of a subject is limited in the way knowledge is gained, but all four ways of knowing are relevant in this area, as well as in the social sciences. In both History and the Social Sciences, information is conveyed and gained through Perception, Reason, Language and Emotion. For example, in history, I have used Perception to perceive the paper, Language to read it and Reason to analyze it. Sometimes you even use Emotion to gain knowledge, when someone’s done something particularly bad or something bad’s happened. The same process occurs in the social sciences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
