How can we gain our knowledge?

Although Star Trek is an old movie that is released around 1970, I have to say that it reminds me another famous science fiction movie: Matrix. Both movies engage me to consider the reliability of our sensation. According to my understanding, sensation is the only connection between our minds and the outer world, but is sensation trustful?

In the Matrix, the whole human world is created by computer program. People's senses are triggered by electric signals, which means that human judgements toward the "real world" are totally controlled computer. In the Star Trek, Captain Pike's sensation is also controlled by aliens, and he cannot tell the difference between the real world and the illusions.

In fact, the reliability of sensation has been discussed for a long time. Some people think that our sensation varies in different situation and is largely affected by our emotions. Sometimes, we cannot even distinguish dreams from reality. However, most our knowledge is derived from the sensation (knowledge like ice is cold and translucent). If sensation is not trustful, how can we gain and justify the knowledge?

What makes us human?

I had never seen Star Trek before today, but I sincerely enjoyed the story-line and the questions it proposed: What makes us human? I think a more interesting question is when do we stop becoming human? During wars in the past, soldiers have called the enemy nicknames which degrade them to a sub-human level. Franz Kafka's "The Metamorphosis" calls into question the way we treat the sick or the old once they "stop contributing" (monetarily or otherwise). Can you guys think of other ways that we sub-humanize people?

I think the question of morality in the Frankenstein universe is a great question to explore. Victor devoted almost 2 solid years of his life, ignoring health, friends, and more, in order to achieve his goals. However, he never really contemplated the consequences of such a lofty objective, and only after he had given the Creature life does he realize how "wrong" he was. How often do you think scientists overlook the consequences of their research like Victor does? He wanted to give life to a creature that had none, and that is all he saw. Did he see no further? Did he not analyze what else had to be accomplished in order to call this experiment a success? Ultimately, this failure of foresight led to the unfortunate deaths of William and Justine.

So, do you think Victor deserves what happens to him after his supposed error in moral judgement? And going back to the question in class, Was it even morally OK to do this to begin with?

I feel like, in the book's universe at least, that this experiment was indeed morally wrong. Many of the personalities in the book display traits that remind me of the philosophical era (Thoreau, Emerson, etc.) where life is life and whatever happens, happens. So , for Victor to go against this grain goes against the will of most people in the Frankenstein Universe.

The Original?

Ok, so the other day during the class discussion we talked about the Basalla essay and how science is spread throughout different groups of people. Throughout the essay he states how the western science is where all science originates. Through his three steps he shows how the less knowledgeable people learn science from the encroaching westerners. Step two and three apply most to what I was wondering, two being when the group has a newly developed outlook on science but yet have not become independent of the westerner aid, and the third being when the group creates their own outlook on science based on the Europeans. My question is, if the Europeans were to follow these steps for themselves, who would have been the ones to bring science to them? And because of this, wouldn't it mean that their science wasn't as superior after all? If all science is based on western science and it is more superior to all then why is it that it is not the location of the beginning of science? What are you guys thoughts on this matter? Is it just that over the years science in Europe has expanded and become more complex than anywhere else? If this were the case I feel that Basalla would show more respect for the nations such as India and China who's science wasn't really lacking. It just was not the same as European science. However, he doesn't, so his thoughts must be the contrary. I don't know, the arrogance of the idea just gets the better of me.

P.S. Everyone was putting a picture, so I decided to join the club. haha


Image source : http://www.fritzcartoons.com/wpcontent/uploads/2007/02/thewheelhigh.jpg

Shifts in "Scientific Thought"

So, throughout the entire semester, we've talked about various definitions of science and scientists. At the beginning, we tried to determined what really classified someone as a scientist, and I have since wondered if the things that Dr. Tiff has had us read have changed our own perspectives of what science and scientists are. Are they different not than they were on day one of class?

Something else that I've been thinking about is another aspect of a shift in scientific thought. Most recently, we read the Foucalt article and noted a shift in scientific thinking - it changed from describing similarities to noting differences and using reason and deduction to "perform science." How does this relate to the early pieces we read that focused on "how to thinking scientifically?" For instance, many of the first pieces we read by Orwell, La Farge, and Huxley tried to define how science should be thought about and how scientists think. Do the many different versions of scientific thinking make actually thinking scientifically more difficult? Or is the act of scientific thinking the thing that is difficult to define? Also, how does Foucalt's view of scientific thinking affect your own perspective of how scientific thought has shifted? Do you think science will continue to shift or will it finally find some sort of balance and harmony within itself?

Science and Religion

The biggest anti-science group in human history is most likely religion. The conflict between science and religion has never stopped since the publishing of Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543. Even now, people have totally different opinions toward Darwinism and Creationism.

Religion is a belief which is used to explain things that people are unable to understand. Religion actually expresses people’s curiosity of the world. In history, religion is usually portrayed as a superpower, used to explain all the mysteries of life. As a result, religion symbolizes not only knowledge, but also authority. During the scientific revolution, a lot of scientists tried to incorporate science with religion in order to avoid punishment from the government.

Science is also a faith to human beings. However, the difference between science and religion is that science has some unique and significant features: science can not only explain phenomenons but predict phenomenons by using simple universal laws. Religion is more like the symbol of “creation, contingency, & eschatology.”

It is no doubt that both science and religion have important roles in our current world. Religion is more related to peoples' spiritual lives, while science elucidates the physical world for us. However, as biological science gradually unveils the mental mysteries of the world, , is it possible that science can finally take over religion?

Proving the Impossible

[Read up to Chapter 16 before reading this post]

In The Calcutta Chromosome no one takes Murugan's work seriously. It was mentioned in class that in the same way Professor Challenger's work was not taken seriously. Challenger's claim was inhibited by accessibility of the plateau (no planes that zip you to South America, no Google Earth to zoom in on the area of the plateau...) so it was not easy to test/prove the idea. I think all of us would agree that the other scientists should not have discarded his evidence and ignored his ideas if they weren't willing to test them.

Murugan exists in a futuristic world where computers can tell you pretty much anything and traveling from Long Island to Calcutta is easy--- and not a month long excursion through the jungle. However, Murugan's ideas are not inhibited by distance but by time. All of his proof centers around events that took place in the 1800's. Trying to prove that there as an ultra-secretive group of "anti-scientists" from the 19th century (which potentially exists today through the "calcutta chromosome") is incredibly bizarre. Do you guys think that Murugan's claims should be taken more seriously in the same way that Challenger's claims should have been? Can his ideas be tested? Are Murugan's claims even in the realm of science? Or is Murugan a more modern example of Challenger: someone whose claims are ignored by modern society because they seem so illogical. Any ideas?