If scientists do not have knowledge to find cures for dise... ... middle of paper ... ... evolved a lot. Therefore, the practice of science has become normal to some people and I agree when Bishop mentions that science is a “continuing thing”. Humanity is characterized to do whatever it takes to seek knowledge and to get a better life. In conclusion, I think scientists take risks by practicing researches when they do not know the results until they see the final product. I believe that in some point of our lives we need to take risks because if we do not take risks we will never find out what difference could we make in society.
These two approaches to science are at complete odds with each other, and so they both cannot be absolutely correct. This paper will analyze these two approaches to the value-free ideal for science and the necessity of science to function autonomously. According to Thomas Kuhn, after an issue is selected to be pursued by scientific research, the role of values (given by society) should diminish greatly if not completely. If the values of society come into play during this stage of scientific research, the outcome of that research could potentially be skewed or misinterpreted. As such, science performs its function best when isolated from outside influences such as social and/or political values.
I’ve learned that there are several values that go into science and research. This matters to me because I have always wondered whether science is all “fair and square”. It also matters to me because I feel that, in my own opinion and from what I have seen, science seems to lack value these days. I have also wondered what things affect science. Is it race, gender, or even how well one is able to grasp the fundamental concept of science?
Not all scientific knowledge is misused, and it’s only brought to our attention when it has been. When this occurs people often question the validity of scientific work which leads to criticism. Some scientific progress will bring with it disruptive change in our society, but with change comes progress and the hope that we can better our lives. In the two stories I will present in this paper, Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” and Catherine Asaro’s “The Veiled Web,” they discuss the negative consequences of the actions from people who try and offer good insight to the scientific community and the general population. In both stories, two men take it upon themselves to manipulate science for the good of mankind.
As a scientist, Bishop believes that science has "solved many of nature's puzzles and greatly enlarged human knowledge" (237) as well as "vastly improved human welfare" (237). Despite these benefits, Bishop points out that some critics are skeptical and have generally mistrusted the field. Bishop believes that "the source of these dissatisfactions appears to be an exaggerated view of what science can do" (239). In the defense of science, Bishop argues that this problem is not due to science rather, it results from a lack of resources. "When scientists fail to meet unrealistic expectations, they are condemned by critics who do not recognize the limits of science" (240).
Scientists that seem to completely ignore these qualities of good science are those that misuse their work. Some scientists that misuse their work aren’t even true scientists, i.e., the press and the fame-seeking scientists. When a scientists or any person that researches and presents findings begin to formulate a hypothesis they must think of a question that either hasn’t been answered, or needs to be corrected. An example of this is Hubble’s Law. Hubble figured out how to find this constant even though his first try was way different than what we accept today.
Through advancing our knowledge in cloning and genetic engineering, we can eliminate unwanted traits and genetic diseases. Wesley may then try to argue that these unwanted traits and diseases make us unique, but I doubt he will get much support, especially from somebody who suffers from some horrible genetic disease or deformity. Wesley then uses nature itself in his arguments by stating: “Eugenics, as awful as it is, is only the beginning of the threat posed to the natural order by human cloning”.
Science and Technology in Reflections and Enemies of Promise The controversy over science is the central argument in both Max Born's "Reflections" and J. Michael Bishop's "Enemies of Promise." Science and technology have greatly influenced and improved the way people live in a society. However, while Born argues that science is the essence of the "breakdown of human civilization" (208), Bishop strongly disagrees with Born's views: that scientists must take responsibility for their inventions and discoveries. Born's essay partly portrays a negative view towards scientists and science. It shows examples of inventions along with their negative effects towards nature and the world.
As I have already mentioned, I feel that too look at the theory in terms of science is damaging to a theory which doesn't need scientific backing to justify it. I feel that it is just as important to discover truths by observation and deduction as it is to do so in a strictly scientific manner. Bibliography Carlson, N R et al (2000). Psychology: the science of behavior. Pierson education ltd. Singer, P (1980) Marx, A very short introduction.
In fact, Swift was a proponent of science in some ways, but he reacted strongly against what he perceived as its abuse or exploitation. The satirical treatment of science in Gulliver’s Travels is more complex than an all-or-nothing rejection of the scientific mindset that was becoming increasingly popular in Swift’s time. Instead of objecting to the use of science in general, Swift seems to have had problems with a particular form of scientific research, and it is with this type of science/scientist that Swift is primarily concerned in Gulliver’s Travels. The type of science that Swift attacks is inapplicable science, or “pure... ... middle of paper ... ...ss of the scientific worldview that was becoming more widespread during his lifetime. Swift himself was not opposed to all scientific endeavors, but Gulliver’s Travels provided a platform for him to explore the potential negative effects/affects of the “new science,” engaging in the exaggeration and absurdity that are essential to satire.