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?

Avatar. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who made the connection. Of course, it's not that Avatar ripped off Lingua Franca, or vice versa. There are quite a few parallels, and it seems that the idea of the anti-conquest is applicable to to both the real world and pop culture. I know, the idea of the anti conquest is "sooo last week," but it's still an interesting concept, and I feel like there was more to be discussed.

It was never really made clear why the "Earthers" had come to the Aqueduct's world. One of the women that passed Mist signed "These Earthers are not like the other off-worlders...Not content with fixing our 'problem,' now they say they're 'fixing' our air." I don't think "fixing" the air was the primary objective, but what was that original "problem" that the Earthers came to fix? The fact that the Aqueducts couldn't speak or hear? That sounds a little like anti conquest to me. And keep trying to make parallels to Avatar. I thought the close relation was interesting, although unintended.

Let's put it this way:

"You guys need help. Let us give you the ability to speak and hear, while we slowly establish small but ever growing colonies and indoctrinate your people with our ways. Sound good?"

Well, that's a little more clear. At least it clarifies what the current situation is on the Aqueduct's home planet. We still don't know about the original motivation for coming to that planet. Maybe just for pure exploration. Either way, I don't believe that the author intended for it to be important.

So I suppose my first question is; does this short story put the Earthers in the position of the "Anti conquesters?" And how so?

Let's also check out the relationship between Mist and her daughter, Flower-in-the-Sun (that's a mouthful, let's call her FITS). FITS wanted to jump onto the speak/hear bandwagon, against her mother's wishes. Again, in Avatar, Neytiri mated with Sully, against her clans wishes.

There seems to be a lot of tension between the older, more traditional Aqueducts and the younger, progressive ones. The older generation is worried that their ancient culture will be lost/destroyed, and all because the newer generation is becoming more prosperous, thanks to the Earthers. FITS is immediately starting to become more popular with her cousins after her operation.

So my second question would be; which path do you think is more advantageous for the Aqueduct people? To remain traditional, or to be progressive and open to the Earthers? Should they chose to be more prosperous and risk losing their culture, or stick with the status quo? Why?

Where do you draw the line?

Ok, well during discussion about the anti-conquest idea of Pratt's article and the gun slinging conquest style of the characters in The Lost World, I started thinking; what are some good examples of these ideas throughout history. All I could come up with were examples of the latter, as in Cortes and the the conquistadors, Columbus and his treatment of the natives, etc. I couldn't come up with any anti-conquest examples. What do you guys think classifies something as anti-conquest? And what examples throughout history would classify as an example of anti-conquest? Where do you draw the line between good and harsh treatment of natives of the colonized land?

PS: By the way, I'm sorry for such the short post. I'm terrible at writing these things...

"There are heroisms all around us"

One of the passages I have highlighted in the book is in the very first chapter when Malone is talking to Gladys.

"But chances are all around you. It is the mark of the kind of man I mean that he makes his own chances. You can't hold him back... There are heroisms all around us waiting to be done.... ... ...But you shouldn't do it merely to please me. You should do it because you can't help it, because it's natural to you - because the man in you is crying out for heroic expression." (pg. 5-6)

I found this passage really interesting when I first read it because it encompasses such an "antique" view of what and why men, in particular, should do things. I thought about how it's now "okay" or accepted for women to be the heroes too. However, as the story continues to develop, I see how Gladys' trivial statements at the beginning are actually developing into truly meaningful things for Malone. During the beginning of the book, I was honestly annoyed with Malone because it didn't seem like he had any kind of direction or passion for himself. It was only to please others (Gladys in particular). But as the story is unfolding, I think that he's finding that thing inside him that "can't help it." Like his persistence in convincing Challenger to not only tell him about his expedition but also following and how comfortable he feels about going. I think that he's developing passion from curiosity and this parallels with how he's transforming from a boy into a man (as discussed in class).

In the end will Malone find that a part of him was always "crying out for heroic expression" and will end up being the kind of man that Gladys has envisioned? Will he discover a passion for adventure and the unknown? Will he regret not being more skeptical about Challenger's claims? Or will he continue to be "gullible" even after his trip to the lost world because in all reality, he did simply believe what he was told about there not being a lost world without question until he met Challenger. Will this cause him to question other "norms"?