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?