Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Scientific Paradigms
We are going to do a presentation on how scientists have changed the way that society and the world perceive the world. I am working with a partner and we are talking about Madame Currie. Madame Currie sacrificed her health and eventually her life to persue scientific discovery on radiation and therefore was able to show the world the harmful effects of radiation. Imagine learning one day that the pretty glowing rocks used in everyday products was actually causing cancer and slowly killing you through invisible rays? The theory of such a reality only being learned in an instant after using radioactive materials in make-up, clothing, jewellery, and everyday products. The idea that something we use everyday could actually have invisible dangers is a freaky concept to consider.
Scientific VS Ethics
Now then, I personally have the idea that science and ethics are connected, but not necessarily in a good way. Scientists (thinking only logically and rationally) have a way of upsetting the ethical protesters in very strong ways. Think about it for a second, a scientist believes in knowledge and facts, and will not hesitate to examine anything that is curious to them, even if it means pushing some of the ethical boundaries we set for ourselves.
One example is stem cell research, scientists see the possibility for vast knowledge of cells, the process of cell differentiation and medical advances beyond our comprehension. Ethical people see scientists dissecting babies in a lab mechanically. Now, both sides may be a little dramatised but there are constant arguments on whether the benefits of major medical advances merits killing unborn babies. Scientists argue that the babies are not even alive and in most cases, would have died anyways, while ethical people believe that every person has a right to their own body and therefore babies are people too, even if they are not conscious at the time.
Another example is cloning, scientists see possibilities of experimenting on human duplicates and medical advances. Ethical people see the violation of human rights and also (if they are religious) the distortion of the natural order of things. Scientists will argue that the ability to use clones to provide easy access to organs. Ethical people say that clones are humans too and that the replication of a natural organism is distorting the natural order of the world.
One example is stem cell research, scientists see the possibility for vast knowledge of cells, the process of cell differentiation and medical advances beyond our comprehension. Ethical people see scientists dissecting babies in a lab mechanically. Now, both sides may be a little dramatised but there are constant arguments on whether the benefits of major medical advances merits killing unborn babies. Scientists argue that the babies are not even alive and in most cases, would have died anyways, while ethical people believe that every person has a right to their own body and therefore babies are people too, even if they are not conscious at the time.
Another example is cloning, scientists see possibilities of experimenting on human duplicates and medical advances. Ethical people see the violation of human rights and also (if they are religious) the distortion of the natural order of things. Scientists will argue that the ability to use clones to provide easy access to organs. Ethical people say that clones are humans too and that the replication of a natural organism is distorting the natural order of the world.
Science Unit Intro
Science is all around us, we have to learn it in school, use it for research, every bit of technology was developed by a scientist. So what is the difference between a scientific perspective and one following a religious belief or ethical person? Can you be religious and ethical and still do science? Those questions are just some which we will learn the answers to through our science unit.
What do we see when we think of a scientist. When I think of one, I see messy hair, a stained lab coat, a microscope, pale skin, male, and glasses. Perhaps the main reason for such an image is because some of the most famous scientists we have seen follow that description. Albert Einstein is one example. The glasses are probably from spending too much time reading and examining things (plus people always say that a person with glasses is probably smarter). The lab coat and microscope are just because of usual equipment used. The messy hair is probably because when you are thinking logically, why would you care about your outward appearance? The one point that perhaps is the most stereotypical and I dislike the most is the male and pale skin points. I am not sexist but you must admit that the male dominated means of scientific research have caused a large imprint in our perspectives. But that is just my first image, I would not be surprised to see a woman scientist. The pale skin was because my idea is that a scientist will not spend much time outside, rather, that tehy will stay in a lab with artifical light. But there is also the imprint that most scientists are caucasian, something which, when i think about it, is so far from the truth it is almost comical. It's funny how the society we are brought up in can so significantly change our unconcious perspectives and stereotypes.
What do we see when we think of a scientist. When I think of one, I see messy hair, a stained lab coat, a microscope, pale skin, male, and glasses. Perhaps the main reason for such an image is because some of the most famous scientists we have seen follow that description. Albert Einstein is one example. The glasses are probably from spending too much time reading and examining things (plus people always say that a person with glasses is probably smarter). The lab coat and microscope are just because of usual equipment used. The messy hair is probably because when you are thinking logically, why would you care about your outward appearance? The one point that perhaps is the most stereotypical and I dislike the most is the male and pale skin points. I am not sexist but you must admit that the male dominated means of scientific research have caused a large imprint in our perspectives. But that is just my first image, I would not be surprised to see a woman scientist. The pale skin was because my idea is that a scientist will not spend much time outside, rather, that tehy will stay in a lab with artifical light. But there is also the imprint that most scientists are caucasian, something which, when i think about it, is so far from the truth it is almost comical. It's funny how the society we are brought up in can so significantly change our unconcious perspectives and stereotypes.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Ethics Research Essay
The Radical Nietzsche Theory is one of many controversies. It rejects the idea of solidarity with others, compassion and pity. On the other hand, it focuses on self reliance and strength. He believes that humans are currently like tamed animals, forced to be passive and meek. He believes that humans have unlocked potential greatness and through freeing ourselves from the chains of society, we can become our true nature. He believes that society is dictating these moral codes in order to control us and our natures. Nietzsche's moral heroes are supermen whom have the ability to reject conventual moral codes and therefore become beyond good and evil.
Therefore, let's say that you were one of these "supermen" (or women) and you saw a young child crying over a popped balloon. You would probably ignore the child because you believe that the child would need to grow up and become stronger, rather than cry over such a small thing.
Another example would be if you were hungry but you had not food in the house, you would go outside and just get some, because its what you want, whether or not it is legal to go out to someone else's house and eat their food, or hunt in the backyard for birds, or steal from the supermarket in order to find something to eat. You basically go back to your primal perspective on life and push away reason and logic and just focus on instinct.
Although this moral theory is quite empowering, I personally have to disagree with it's overall perspectives. I believe that because humans have the ability for thought, reason and logic, we should use that ability to our advantage. The way that we conduct ourselves is more to show how we want to be treated and if the entire would was as primal as what this moral code would take us to, our society would simply become animals and therefore there would be no real need for any our abilities, which I personally think are a waste. I would not like to go back to an animal when I have already experienced the joy of understanding. But that is just me.
Therefore, let's say that you were one of these "supermen" (or women) and you saw a young child crying over a popped balloon. You would probably ignore the child because you believe that the child would need to grow up and become stronger, rather than cry over such a small thing.
Another example would be if you were hungry but you had not food in the house, you would go outside and just get some, because its what you want, whether or not it is legal to go out to someone else's house and eat their food, or hunt in the backyard for birds, or steal from the supermarket in order to find something to eat. You basically go back to your primal perspective on life and push away reason and logic and just focus on instinct.
Although this moral theory is quite empowering, I personally have to disagree with it's overall perspectives. I believe that because humans have the ability for thought, reason and logic, we should use that ability to our advantage. The way that we conduct ourselves is more to show how we want to be treated and if the entire would was as primal as what this moral code would take us to, our society would simply become animals and therefore there would be no real need for any our abilities, which I personally think are a waste. I would not like to go back to an animal when I have already experienced the joy of understanding. But that is just me.
Ethics, ethics, everywhere!
We started a new unit of ethics, which is all about how we come up with ethics and why we believe in them. It poses an interesting question, why do we think certain values are important. I mean, we never really think why we believe stuff like; killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, drugs are bad. I mean, there is the obvious reasons, some are bad for your health, some are against our human rights, but still, we never really consider the motives behind our internal moral compass. I guess it depends on the society or culture we are immersed in and our personal beliefs, which are often instilled in us through our family's beliefs and instincts. I guess in a way, most moral dilemmas are really just roundabout reasoning, like we learned before, it is circular reasoning to believe in something because your reasoning relies on that reasoning. I mean, our morals are instilled in us because that is the general concensus and we then create the concensus for everyone else. It really is a strange concept if you think about it and I wonder if it is really trustworthy to believe in morals just because everyone else does. I guess each person needs to sit down and think, like I have, and decide what they believe is good or bad. Some of the morals around me I find are not really as extreme or singular as others tend to believe while some are important, and should be paid more attention to.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Reason Comes From Emotion?
The article by Dr. Richard van de Lagemaat was about how emotions provide us with a reason for doing everything we do. Emotions give us goals, give us directions and priorities. He said that those who do not have emotions are those who are completely indifferent. Without emotions we would have no reason to live or die. No reason to learn or think. We do not want. He believes that those we consider without emotion, completely rational beings with logical thinking, are simply those in control of their emotions. This poses an interesting question. Is emotion the motivation or reason to do everything we do? I guess in some way, what we do, even our most primal instincts, are based on things that feel good. Eating feels good, drinking feels good, being healthy feels good, etc. While being sick feels bad, thirsty feels bad, hungry feels bad... So in someway, our emotions are directing our way of thinking to believe that what we do is important if it feels good. If it feels good, it is necessary for our bodies. There are a few exceptions of course, but that is mostly because our instincts have not developed to the same capacity and the range of substances and things we have become adapted to. We (in primal times) were unable to really take good things in excess. Now that we have access to the things that we enjoy, we sometimes take things too far and that leads to things being bad for us. But if we were a the more prehistoric lifestyles, we would not have such access and would not be to an access. I personally agree that emotions are important to life, and that if we control some of our more wayward and unnecessary emotions in order to not do things we do not want to do or think completely irrationally because we want to do something, then that is the best form of emotions. I also think that emotions are INCREDIBLY difficult to control, and if you take the effort and have the ability to control such complex emotions to think about things rationally before acting, that is the perfect balance and you should be commended for your efforts.
Emotions Final Essay
Emotions are detrimental to the human race because of five reasons (although this is actually not my belief).
The first reason is because they make people make stupid decisions that sometimes lead to ruin because they are swayed by emotion. A person will sometimes sacrifice millions of innocent lives to save one person who may not be particularly good because they are important to that person, simply because their emotions are tied to a particular person and are therefore choose selfishly. This causes problems with doing the logical things, as people will do what they feel like doing, rather than what is reasonable.
The second reason is because people allow emotions to affect how they see other people and react to those people. Many a conflict was started because someone felt negatively towards that person from something they said or seemed like, which would lead to them acting with bias and sometimes starting wars simply to get ‘revenge’. Conflicts lead to death and people getting hurt, and therefore are simply selfish acts, because the only people who enjoy conflicts (for a time) are those triggering them.
The third reason is the different things that are caused by emotions, such as the 7 deadly sins; greed, lust, gluttony, wrath, sloth, pride, and envy. All of these ‘sins’ are caused by negative emotions and selfishness. We want to feel better so we go into an access something in order to feel those good emotions and end up causing more problems with that. You could assume that selfishness is caused by emotion, because by wanting to feel better or feel good emotions, you will try to do stuff just for you. Selfishness itself is the root of many problems such as but not exclusive to, the 7 deadly sins.
The fourth reason is that emotion is unnecessary for life. If you remove emotions from the way you think and act, you are still thinking and acting. You are only being entirely logical rather than using emotions as an excuse to alter your thinking. Without emotions, humans can function properly and effectively. In fact, efficiency will increase because people will not become bored, tired, or lazy. You can get a lot more done in life without emotions and it will still be possible to live.
The fifth reason is that emotions are sometimes negative and can lead people to lose their ability to properly think because of things like depression, stress and extreme anger. People allow negative emotions to sway their behaviors. In fact, people will sometimes allow negative emotions to end their lives, which is completely irrational and wrong. Suicide because you are depressed should be removed from possibilities and if people are without emotion, they will not do such drastic things. In fact, they wouldn’t have need to, because they would never feel sad again. You would never have to feel depressed because something went wrong in your life and stressed because you had a lot to do. IT would make people more rational and less de-motivated.
Although this is not my true belief, these are reasons to perhaps why people would believe that emotions are not necessary or we would be better off without them, like the leader in the film “Equilibrium”.
The first reason is because they make people make stupid decisions that sometimes lead to ruin because they are swayed by emotion. A person will sometimes sacrifice millions of innocent lives to save one person who may not be particularly good because they are important to that person, simply because their emotions are tied to a particular person and are therefore choose selfishly. This causes problems with doing the logical things, as people will do what they feel like doing, rather than what is reasonable.
The second reason is because people allow emotions to affect how they see other people and react to those people. Many a conflict was started because someone felt negatively towards that person from something they said or seemed like, which would lead to them acting with bias and sometimes starting wars simply to get ‘revenge’. Conflicts lead to death and people getting hurt, and therefore are simply selfish acts, because the only people who enjoy conflicts (for a time) are those triggering them.
The third reason is the different things that are caused by emotions, such as the 7 deadly sins; greed, lust, gluttony, wrath, sloth, pride, and envy. All of these ‘sins’ are caused by negative emotions and selfishness. We want to feel better so we go into an access something in order to feel those good emotions and end up causing more problems with that. You could assume that selfishness is caused by emotion, because by wanting to feel better or feel good emotions, you will try to do stuff just for you. Selfishness itself is the root of many problems such as but not exclusive to, the 7 deadly sins.
The fourth reason is that emotion is unnecessary for life. If you remove emotions from the way you think and act, you are still thinking and acting. You are only being entirely logical rather than using emotions as an excuse to alter your thinking. Without emotions, humans can function properly and effectively. In fact, efficiency will increase because people will not become bored, tired, or lazy. You can get a lot more done in life without emotions and it will still be possible to live.
The fifth reason is that emotions are sometimes negative and can lead people to lose their ability to properly think because of things like depression, stress and extreme anger. People allow negative emotions to sway their behaviors. In fact, people will sometimes allow negative emotions to end their lives, which is completely irrational and wrong. Suicide because you are depressed should be removed from possibilities and if people are without emotion, they will not do such drastic things. In fact, they wouldn’t have need to, because they would never feel sad again. You would never have to feel depressed because something went wrong in your life and stressed because you had a lot to do. IT would make people more rational and less de-motivated.
Although this is not my true belief, these are reasons to perhaps why people would believe that emotions are not necessary or we would be better off without them, like the leader in the film “Equilibrium”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
