Personal Experience Of Science Born as I was into the immediate post-war generation, my thinking on science parallels in many ways the generation as a whole. We came along in the aftermath of the first scientific war – fought between countries with, in many ways, highly-developed technologies, which served to both fuel and end the conflict (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 1999, cited in Schneider, Grunman & Coutts, 2005). But then came the first inklings that there was both more and less to science than shiny new machines, even killing machines. The social experiments of Milgram (1965) and the cold behaviorism of Skinner (Operant Conditioning, 2007) surfaced into the popular consciousness, and arguably fueled the lingering revulsion over the part science played in the recent conflict. The increasing reach of television, and the growing immediacy of the vision of the world that this gave, may have contributed to a growing sense of a complexity beyond the immediate post-war world, of a sense that there was something more to be had than the rational present. Such complexity bred a wish for simpler solutions, smaller havens and understandable solutions (Brehm et al., ibid). And there began the long flight from rationalism, from theory into pragmatics (Omer & Dar, 1992, cited in Dar, Serlin, & Omer, 1994) where personal experience and feelings took center stage and evidence took the rear. My personal attitudes towards science echoed in many ways that process above, beginning by wishing to be a hard-scientist but drifting slowly towards the humanities, while retaining some of my respect for the perceived qualities of hard science. I had first wanted to be a nuclear physicist, enthralled as I was by the dual influence of “How It Works” and “A... ... middle of paper ... ...ant-memories--understanding-the-human-mind-is-easy-once-you-realise-that-consciousness-is-a-trick-of-memory-and-selfawareness-an-illusion-of-language.html?full=true Meehl., P. (1997). (1997) The problem is epistemology, not statistics: Replace significance tests by confidence intervals and quantify accuracy of risky numerical predictions. In L. L. Harlow, S. A. Mulaik, & J.H. Steiger (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 393-425). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18(1), 57-76. doi:10.1177/001872676501800105 Minuchin, S. (1975). A conceptual model of psychosomatic illness in children: Family organization and family therapy. Archives of General Psychiatry, 32(8), 1031-1038. Operant conditioning. (2007). . Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_ctJqjlrHA
Fromm, Erich. "Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem." Writing and Reading for ACP Composition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Custom, 2009. 258-63. Print.
More specifically, the movie A Few Good Men depicts the results of blindly obeying orders. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, also explores obedience to authority in his essay “ The Perils of Obedience”. On the other hand, Erich Fromm, a psychoanalyst and philosopher, focused on disobedience to authority in his essay “ Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem.” Milgram wrote about how people were shockingly obedient to authority when they thought they were harming someone else while Fromm dissected both: why people are so prone to obey and how disobedience from authoritative figures can bring beneficial changes for society. Obeying commands, even when they go against our morals, is human nature; Disobeying commands, however, is challenging to do no matter what the situation is.
Stanley Milgram’s experiment shows societies that more people with abide by the rules of an authority figure under any circumstances rather than follow their own nature instinct. With the use of his well-organized article that appeals to the general public, direct quotes and real world example, Milgram’s idea is very well-supported. The results of the experiment were in Milgram’s favor and show that people are obedient to authority figures. Stanley Milgram shows the reader how big of an impact authority figures have but fails to answer the bigger question. Which is more important, obedience or morality?
A nobel prize winning, architect of the atomic bomb, and well-known theoretical physicist, Professor Richard P. Feynman, at the 1955 autumn meeting of the National Academy of science, addresses the importance of science and its impact on society. Feynman contends, although some people may think that scientists don't take social problems into their consideration, every now and then they think about them. However he concedes that, because social problems are more difficult than the scientific ones, scientist don’t spend too much time resolving them (1). Furthermore he states that scientist must be held responsible for the decisions they make today to protect the future generation; also they have to do their best, to learn as much as possible,
Most of us obey every day without a thought. People follow company dress code, state and federal laws and the assumed rules of courtesy. Those who do disobey are usually frowned upon or possibly even reprimanded. But has it even occurred to you that in some cases, disobedience may be the better course to choose? In her speech "Group Minds," Doris Lessing discusses these dangers of obedience, which are demonstrated in Shirley Jackson's short story "The Lottery."
Looking at recent publications, one has the impression that family therapy is a new concoction from the psychotherapist's alchemic kitchen. It is met with diverse reactions. Some regard it suspiciously, seeing it as a deviation from traditional therapeutic methods; others praise it as an important advance in the treatment of psychoses. Still others view it as a special method for dealing with children.
Through my research and findings of obedience to authority this ancient dilemma is somewhat confusing but needs understanding. Problem with obedience to authority has raised a question to why people obey or disobey and if there are any right time to obey or not to obey. Through observation of many standpoints on obedience and disobedience to authority, and determined through detailed examination conducted by Milgram “The Perils Of Obedience,” Doris Lessing “Group Minds” and Shirley Jackson “The Lottery”. We have to examine this information in hopes of understanding or at least be able to draw our own theories that can be supported and proven on this subject.
In Milgram’s article, he discusses the basic principle of obedience and the necessity of such behavior in the structure of society and all social life. For many people, obedience is a deeply engraved behavior pattern, and very well a strong impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct (Milgram 579). Milgram set up an experiment at Yale University to see how much pain one would inflict on another simply because of being commanded to do so. Authority won more than not.
“I was just following orders.” That line was infamously muttered as Stanley Milgram witnessed the Nuremberg Trial of Major German War Criminals (Cuomo et al., 2007), after which he began to experiment to answer the question: “just how likely are human beings to blindly follow the orders, just or unjust, given by a legitimate figure of established authority?” In his studies, he provided a way to study obedience to authority by operationalizing obedience. According to Dr. Schreier (September 13, 2016), to operationalize is to label and describe variables of interest, giving a concrete meaning to a variable that would otherwise be quite ambiguous. There can easily be many interpretations of the term “obedience,” but in his study, Milgram simply
In the article, the author reveals his passion for science began at an early age becoming curious to learning how things work, and as an adult qualified the gratification you receive from its understanding when he states “Doing science is still among my chief pleasures” (Sagan 2). Throughout the article, Sagan reiterates his passion for science while he explains the disconnect in today’s democratic American society due to the movement away from science and into an information and service economy. The author argues from the point of view of how children and adults who do not understand science could be detrimental to society because people are less knowledgeable about the world and have the inability to find new ideas. In a plea, the author explains “…how gratifying it is when we get it…” Sagan’s article in the Washington Post directly aligns with the interest and passion with our protagonist, Victor Frankenstein who says “I read and studied the wild fancies of these writers with delight; they appeared to me treasure know too few besides myself” (Shelley 22). Frankenstein describes his passion to learn the secrets to which nature holds for the purpose of rewards of discovery. And Sagan just like Frankenstein indicates “When you’re in love, you want to tell the world ” and”when we understand and put this knowledge to use, many feel, if not a wild exhilaration, a least a deep satisfaction” (Sagan 3). Although science is not absolute with a definitive answer it is important to collaborate with others thus roping them into thinking about how science integrates into their lives instead of maintain isolation giving no room for
Science has played a significant role in the development of society. Other world views, such as Hum...
Why am I so afraid of science? After all, was it not because of science that advancements in technology were made? Did it not create immunizations for once lethal diseases such as measles and polio? Although science does benefit our lives, it also provides detrimental and destructive results. The automobile was a break through invention, yet, it is also one of the main producers of pollution. Was it not a result of science that the atomic bomb was created thereby, destroying the lives of numerous beings? J. Michael Bishop and Pamela Samuelson demonstrate through their readings that science can be both beneficial and detrimental.
Skuse, David. (2003). Child psychology and psychiatry: an introduction. Abindton, Oxfordshire, UK: Medicine Publishing Company Limited.
Nature of science or NOS is a term that refers to the epistemic knowledge of science, the knowledge of constructs and values that are intrinsic to the subject. The constructs and values include historical groundwork to scientific discovery and social incorporation such as sociology, philosophy, and history of science (“Nature of Science”). Nature of science, in my opinion, should not be explicitly taught in high school science curriculum. The basis for my standing on the issue is representative of the lack of a fundamental standard understanding of what Nature of Science is, as well as the lack of effectiveness in explicitly teaching Nature of Science which I will expand on further in
If we have learned anything at all about the uses of science in the second half of this century, it is that it has had an unmistakable influence on contemporary trends and outcomes. Science has helped to make the world smaller, spatially, and larger, numerically. It has multiplied our choices and scaled up our risks. Based on science we have put humans into space and opened a new arena for warfare. Science has illuminated human beginnings and shaken age-old postulates about human worth and destiny. Science has unlocked material abundance and laid new burdens on irreplaceable resources. It has expanded human potential and dramatized human limits. It has advanced clarity and magnified uncertainty. It has penetrated the deepest reaches of knowledge and held a world hostage on the edge of crisis.