Entry #1, January 15th:
Task: Watch the video by Adkins and comment in your journal on whether you agree or disagree with his view of science as truth [and explain why].
Peter Adkins argues that science is the absolute truth. Although I agree with this statement to some degree, I think that science can only paint part of the picture. To explain my point a thorough dissection should be done to Adkins’s point of view.
Peter Adkins argues that science is the truth. He states that science has enormous power which can elucidate and control nature, and there are no bounds to it. Science can comment on the origin and the end of the world, on evolution and the activities of life. He also states that science always prevails even though the road may not be straight in the beginning.
On the other hand, I do not agree with his remarks on science as truth. I believe that science helps us reason toward the truth, but I do not believe that it is the truth since it’s not stagnating. Science is built upon observations from which theories are formed. Sometimes observations can be flawed because they may be biased depending on who’s observing. For example, the “Yanny or Laurel” sound or the “black and blue or gold and white dress”. People perceive things differently. Since science is based on theories, it changes. New theories change old ones based on current beliefs. Truth never changes, and because of that science is not the truth.
To conclude, though I agree that science is crucial to find the truth I believe that it is not the truth because it is everchanging and truth cannot be everchanging.
Entry #2, January 29th:
Task: Read the Pinker-Wieseltier exchange in the New Republic and comment in your journal on who you think has the better argument. Who do you agree with more [and explain why]?
In the Pinker and Wieseltier debate, I think that Wieseltier had the better argument. Pinker stated that science is relevant to everything. He thinks that humanist discredit themselves when they go against science. Another thing he says is that if science can cure disease why is it resented. On the other hand, Wieseltier states that humanities are very important, and they need protection from people like Pinker who are imposing scientism on humanists. He believes that science is good, but we need a humanitarian approach to certain questions that science can’t answer.
Science attempts to solve things separately which is why humanities are better in some areas because they look at the whole approach rather than bits of information at a time. Even though science can answer most things in our lives, it cannot answer the universes’ problems. For example, why anything exists, why don’t we know what will happen in the future or what happens when we die? These are questions that science can’t answer and needs someone who can get past the idea of science like humanitarian to solve them. Wieseltier affirms that science is trivial but to believe that it is better in all contexts is wrong for example in religion. If we use scientism, we need facts to prove something which religion can’t provide for example miracles that have happened. That is why we need a humanistic approach to get past the idea of science and believe in what we believe in.
In conclusion, although Pinker makes good points about why science is what should be used, I think Wieseltier has a better argument because he discusses questions that science can’t answer.
Entry #3, February 12th:
Task: Read the article by Diamond. In your journal discuss whether [and why] you agree or disagree with Jared Diamond’s assertion about agriculture.
In Jared Diamond’s essay, he argues how the human race has made a huge mistake by going through the agricultural revolution. After reading the paper, I agree with his point because the agricultural revolution caused decreased strength, increased health problems and increased the pressure on the environment.
Firstly, the agricultural revolution caused recent generations to have decreased strength.
As stated in the paper, hunter-gatherers had high bone densities until the development of agriculture. The researchers do not attribute it to the amount of calcium intake but the lack of physical activity. Moreover, the agricultural revolution has increased health problems in individuals. Compared to the hunter-gatherer’s, farmers had a fifty percent increase in enamel defects malnutrition and iron-deficiency anemia. The paper also states that the farmers are more malnourished, starved and overall have worse health. Finally, the agricultural revolution increases pressure on the environment. Before this revolution, people used to be more scattered which was good for the environment but since the revolution people produce more offspring and live more closely together. This is one of the reasons why global warming has started. It is human nature to be better than the person next to you and because people live together, they want to use more of the earth’s resources which creates further problems for the earth.
In conclusion, I agree with what Jared has said about the agricultural revolution and after reading the paper I agree that we shouldn’t have gone through it.
Entry #4, March 4th:
Task: Watch the Turkle video. In your journal please make an entry that discusses whether social networking websites [such as Facebook] represent the’ real’ community. Has the advance in communication technologies enhanced human relationships?
Social media websites have taken us far away from what a real community is. As stated at the beginning of the ted talk people have found a way to be alone together. Which if given a though is a terrifying thing. I think that advances in technology have made human relationships worse.
As affirmed by Sherry Turkle, People don’t like to talk face to face because they cannot delete or edit the thing they have said. Children nowadays grow up with social media around them they don’t build many social skills. Nowadays they would rather stay indoors rather than going outside and playing a sport. Everywhere you see, there are people with their phones instead of being with their friends. People expect more social media (machines) than with real people. People want to see others paying attention to them, that is why they create social media pages that give them instant feedback. Although it seems great in the beginning people get addicted to it and start going in a loop (Post, read comments, Post another). This relationship through social media have turned us helpless and made human relationships fake. People only post what they think the best version of themselves is, at the moment they post. This creates a fake persona that everyone wants to have and the people that don’t have it become anxious and depressed.
In conclusion, I think that social networking websites have made us go far away from what a real community would look like and have made our relationships worse.
Entry #5, March 18th:
Task: Read the debate between Kurzweil and Bill Joy. In your journal please elaborate on whether you agree with Kurzweil’s assertion that we cannot refrain from technological development (and why!!).
Although technology has many cons its pros far outweigh them. They help us do things faster, help find a cure for diseases and provides an incredible amount of information fast.
Firstly, we cannot refrain from technology because they help us do things faster. For example, calculations that we had to do by hand before now are done by computers. Communication has become faster before you had to wait several minutes before your call could be connected now there are millions of servers that your call can go through. Moreover, technology helps us find a cure for diseases. For example, the coronavirus, which is growing at an unprecedented rate could keep growing and infect a lot of people around the world. If we didn’t have the technology, we have right now we wouldn’t be able to find what the virus is and how to get rid of it. Finally, technology such as a web browser provides us with billions of pages of information online. If you want information fast, about something its available on the internet and is one click away. Even though the technology is a “double-edged sword” it has transformed humans into what they are now.
In conclusion, we cannot refrain from technology because it helps us do things faster, help find a cure for diseases and provides an incredible amount of information fast.