Abstract
Robert Hooke was an extraordinarily industrious man who played an important part in how we understand nature today. Hooke’s influential scientific research deems him a virtuoso of his time. Unfortunately, he is disregarded in most history books. His achievements were in the field of microscopy, specifically, developing the first compound microscope, and being the first to recognize cells. Hooke’s inventions allowed him to reveal the unknown universe of microscopic organisms, paving way for a new level of nature, that was never known before. A member of the Royal Society for over 40 years, Hooke was at the heart of the scientific revolution.
For more info - http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/hooke.html
For a picture of Robert Hooke's Ccompound microscope - http://www.english.upenn.edu/Projects/knarf/Gifs/hookscop.html
Friday, October 31, 2008
No Guts, No Glory!
Dissection is more than just cutting open a body and looking inside it. It is almost like an adventure in medical research. Andreas Vesalius was the first who revolutionized the idea of opening the body and trying to make sense of how it worked. In Europe during sixteenth and seventeenth century this concept was just being introduced and not an easy one to grasp. Dissection can be a hard subject to conduct to but it’s a subject it can lead to amazing things and discoveries. By using someone's dead body, it can lead to the extension of their life in a long term. Who wouldn't want to have the comfort of knowing that health care will provide more for person’s living, and be able to fix certain things inside the body that were not possible before due to the lack of medical knowledge. Throughout this presentation we will show the wonders of what can be found with dissection and what can be done with the knowledge of medicine. This amazing discoveries lead to medical advancement.
http://www.historyworld.net/default.asp
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/history_of_medicine.htm
http://www.historyworld.net/default.asp
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/history_of_medicine.htm
Francis Bacon's Scientific Method
Francis Bacon was a genius for his time period. He invented the Scientific Method, which we still use today all the time. Scientist today still follows these rules and kids are still being taught the Scientific Method in their classes. Junior year in High School I remember clearly studying and using the Scientific Method for our lab projects. The period of time that he invented this was a tough time to teach people. People were very stubborn and uneducated, pretty much sucked into religion and their laws. During the 15 and 16 hundreds, The Catholic Church was in power. Science was a threat to religion during the time, with the power of the church it is easy to say that a threat to the church could be taken care of without a problem. If Francis Bacon did not invent this method, there is a good possibility that some of the discoveries we have today might not have been discovered. For example, say a scientist did not follow the method, and tried to do it on his own. He does everything right, but he thinks that he can remember all of his data. Then all of a sudden he invents something new, but he is not able to redo it because he did not record his data and he forgot all of his information. Francis Bacon’s invention was a positive impact on the scientific revolution throughout time.
Sources
Dawkins, Richard. "God Delusion by Richard Dawkins- Science Vs. Religion." Youtube. 31 Oct. 2008
"Scientific Method." Youtube.com. 31 Oct. 2008
Pressures, Volumes, and Vacuums! Oh My!
Do you think that the relationship between volume and pressure when referring to gases at a constant temperature in a vacuum is awesome? If so, then we have the perfect paper for you. Our paper is about one the most famous British scientists to this day, Robert Boyle. You have most likely heard of Boyle’s law that says that PV = k with k being a constant. Robert Boyle discovered the relationship between the pressure and volume of gases in 1662 while performing some experiments that he and his lab assistant, Robert Hooke, conducted. This law of nature is important because it is observed in every day life and can be applied to many of our daily encounters. This is only a brief look at what is in our written presentation. You will have to read the entire thing to get all the details. For more information about Robert Boyle check out this informative website and here is a clip explaining the specifics of Boyle’s Law.
If you want to read our full written presentation then you can click here.
Get-Out-Of-Poverty-Free Card
Poor? Starving? Struggling to survive? Turn any lesser metal into gold!
This was only one of several outlandish claims that alchemists made in the 16th and 17th centuries, during a time of desperation when such suggestions earned them fame and fortune. Alchemists of this period claimed to possess the ability to not only turn lesser metals to gold, but also produce the philosopher’s stone, a mythical crystal whose properties included curing every known ailment, bestowing spiritual enlightenment, and granting eternal life.
The idea is hardly a difficult one to market. For our presentation we plan to sell the irresistible trappings of life and eternal wealth to the historical audience, and use to basic principles of the philosophy of alchemy to explain how such a substance could exist. To a crowd in abject destitution, the relevance was clear; little was more alluring than a get-out-of- poverty card.
…
For links to hundreds of primary-source texts on alchemy, click.
For a quick definition of alchemy and its history, click.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Midterm Abstract
This presentation will cover the works of William Gilbert. Gilbert was a scientist during the scientific revolution, and is particularly well know for his work regarding magnetism. His most famous work, De Magnete, was published during the time in order to debunk many myths about magnetism-and more specifically, the compass.
Because the compass was integral to sea travel during the time, Gilbert’s work was particularly revolutionary. Previously, there was great confusion as to what effected or controlled the needle of the compass. The myths that surrounded the instrument made sea travel dangerous, as there was little to no understanding of the ship’s most valuable tool. Gilbert was able to illuminate the workings of the compass, and therefore make sea travel safer.
In order to fully explain both Gilbert’s works, as well as their importance, we will illuminate all relevant factors. This will include an overview of Gilbert’s ideas and the processes he utilized in order to complete his studies. We will also define the historical and cultural context in which Gilbert’s work took place, and explore the nature of the people which populated the era. These factors will help readers gain a greater understanding of not only Gilbert’s work, but the importance of it.
If you're not particularly familiar with magnetism, here's a quick video to catch you up!
Because the compass was integral to sea travel during the time, Gilbert’s work was particularly revolutionary. Previously, there was great confusion as to what effected or controlled the needle of the compass. The myths that surrounded the instrument made sea travel dangerous, as there was little to no understanding of the ship’s most valuable tool. Gilbert was able to illuminate the workings of the compass, and therefore make sea travel safer.
In order to fully explain both Gilbert’s works, as well as their importance, we will illuminate all relevant factors. This will include an overview of Gilbert’s ideas and the processes he utilized in order to complete his studies. We will also define the historical and cultural context in which Gilbert’s work took place, and explore the nature of the people which populated the era. These factors will help readers gain a greater understanding of not only Gilbert’s work, but the importance of it.
If you're not particularly familiar with magnetism, here's a quick video to catch you up!
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Most Valuable Commodity On Earth
Mild shock. That was my first reaction to Michael Manson’s “How to Teach Science to the Pope” (found in our course readings). Listen to the media tell it, the Catholic Church is opposed to science in fairly every form, from genetic modification to evolution to the Big Bang, every last little bit of it. Should’ve figured – you can’t believe everything you see on TV.
Turns out, the Vatican’s acceptance of science is nearly a complete one-eighty from the media portrayal. Not only do they accept many scientific views and work to intersect scientific discoveries with the Catholic belief system, they have various institutions of their own, composed of scientists ranging from clergymen to atheists, to pioneer discoveries and discuss their applications to faith. And it makes a lot of sense, once you hear it. Consolmango, a Jesuit brother and astronomer for the Vatican Observatory, explains in the article that “the idea that the universe is worth studying just because it’s worth studying is a religious idea. If you think the universe is fundamentally good and that it’s an expression of a good God, then studying how the universe works is a way of becoming intimate with the Creator. It’s a kind of worship” (Manson 1).
It’s not a bad point. In many facets of science, the goal is to better humanity – to improve on technology, to save lives, to better the human condition. The study of the universe, however, the pursuit of understanding our creation, cannot feasibly do any of these things. It is, as Kurt Vonnegut would say, pure research; research is not “looking for a better cigarette filter or a softer facial tissue or a longer-lasting house paint, God help us” (Vonnegut 35). Pure research is when “men are paid to increase knowledge, to work toward no end but that”. And “nothing generous about it. New knowledge is the most valuable commodity on Earth. The more truth we have to work with, the richer we become” (Vonnegut 36).
Perhaps Vatican science is right on the money.
....
Looking for more? On the discoverability of the universe, and it’s relationship to humanity, spend six minutes here.
...
Sources:
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope
Vonnegut, Kurt. Cat’s Cradle. New York: Dell Publishing Company, Inc, 1963.
Sperm, the Beginnings
Ever wonder who discovered sperm? Well, a man named Antoni van Leeuwenhoek did in the 17th century. He developed powerful variations of the microscope and began delving into the micro-world. He found a vast new land of microorganisms that surround us. His peculiar interest in ant reproduction led him to ideas of how reproduction occurs in humans. His discovery challenged the common belief of creationism. People were taken aback by the radical ideas Leeuwenhoek brought to intellectual circles.
For our presentation we plan to demonstrate the existence of microbiology. By showing our audience a skin sample under a microscope, they will hopefully believe in the existence of microbiology. This direct approach of proving our idea to the public is the best method of convincing them of Leeuwenhoek’s ideas. We will distribute hand drawn pictures of sperm to give the audience an idea of what sperm looks like under the microscope in an abstracted way.
We are going to persuade our audience that microbiology is significant to understanding how the universe functions. It gives humans a different perspective on the world that they couldn’t achieve on their own. Having a clear idea of how human reproduction functions provides more awareness of biological cycles. Microbiology may lead to explanations of how healing properties work which in turn leads to advances in medicine and health.
Interested in learning more?
Sunday, October 26, 2008
One Grand Plan, Nothing Else can Happen
After reading Nature and God, Wisdom and will, I feel I made a rather interesting connection between two different ideas. I often hear people who practice religion, mostly Christianity, refer to God's "Master Plan". This implies that God has everything planned out already, and that everything that happens in the world has already been predetermined. this section of reading explains that mechanical philosophers believed essentially the same thing, almost as if life is a wind up clock, and as soon as it was made he wound it up and let it go, not to interact with it again.
However, if He has a master plan (given that He truly does exist), then what really is the point of it? I mean, when we make and wind up a watch, we use it to keep track of time, so what could God have intended to do with us and this universe we live in? It can't be to teach us something; if He has a set plan, then we have no real use of what he is trying to teach us, unless of course there is something we need to learn in this life to take with us to the after life. I know it sounds like I'm just rambling, but these are the kinds of thoughts that can make me think for hours and hours on end.
Shapin, Steven. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago press, 1996
However, if He has a master plan (given that He truly does exist), then what really is the point of it? I mean, when we make and wind up a watch, we use it to keep track of time, so what could God have intended to do with us and this universe we live in? It can't be to teach us something; if He has a set plan, then we have no real use of what he is trying to teach us, unless of course there is something we need to learn in this life to take with us to the after life. I know it sounds like I'm just rambling, but these are the kinds of thoughts that can make me think for hours and hours on end.
Shapin, Steven. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago press, 1996
Friday, October 24, 2008
Miracles
While reading the excerpt, "Nature and God, Wisdom and Will" in The Scientific Revolutions many questions arose for me. It talked a lot about how unexplainable things in nature were deemed as acts of God by mechanical philosophers during this time. This caused me to wonder if these philosophers were just settling with what a highly Christian society had accepted; was deeming miracles a cop out for further thought or backlash? It seemed the standard to answer all questions dealing with why things happen with because God made it so.
The John Templeton Foundation had similar doubts about miracles and believes in thorough methodology through its prayer research studies. They conducted the largest study on prayer in 2006, which featured over 1,800 patients. They stated that "Bypass patients who consented to take part in the experiment were divided randomly into three groups. Some patients received prayers but were not informed of that. In the second group the patients got no prayers, and also were not informed one way or the other. The third group got prayers and were told so. There was virtually no difference in complication rates between patients in the first two groups. But the third group, in which patients knew they were receiving prayers, had a complication rate of 59 percent--significantly more than the rate of 52 percent in the no-prayer group." The Foundation is not trying to disprove whether God exists but rather show that deeming something a miracle is not always the final answer.
Works Cited
Shapin, Steven. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago press, 1996.
The John Templeton Foundation had similar doubts about miracles and believes in thorough methodology through its prayer research studies. They conducted the largest study on prayer in 2006, which featured over 1,800 patients. They stated that "Bypass patients who consented to take part in the experiment were divided randomly into three groups. Some patients received prayers but were not informed of that. In the second group the patients got no prayers, and also were not informed one way or the other. The third group got prayers and were told so. There was virtually no difference in complication rates between patients in the first two groups. But the third group, in which patients knew they were receiving prayers, had a complication rate of 59 percent--significantly more than the rate of 52 percent in the no-prayer group." The Foundation is not trying to disprove whether God exists but rather show that deeming something a miracle is not always the final answer.
Works Cited
Shapin, Steven. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago press, 1996.
Further than Parallel
In addition to running parallel science and religion compliment each other. While science is the act of figuring out and proving something as fact, religion tries to understand the rationality behind a subject. Religion is referred to and believed over science although science has the facts and proven information to prove what they have found. Scientists can prove that the 'Big Bang Theory' is more plausible than the seven days of creation, people still refer back and compare it to the old beliefs.
“A hundred years ago we didn't understand the Big Bang,” Consolmangno says. “Now that we have the understanding of a universe that is big and expanding and changing, we can ask philosophical questions we would have known to ask, like 'What does it mean to have multiverses?' These are wonderful questions. Science isn't going to answer them, but science, by telling us what is there, causes us to ask these questions. It makes us go back to the seven days of creation-which is poetry, beautiful poetry, with a lesson underneath it-and says, 'Oh, the seventh day is God resting as a way of reminding us God doesn't do everything.' God built this universe but gave you and me the freedom to make choices within the universe”(Mason, 2).
Here is a great example of how religion can display another angle of the story even though it is outdated and been proven wrong by science. Science explains why many things occur and many things cannot be explained through science such as aspects of human life. When it comes to these aspects such as love, relationships, and friendships, religion can better explain them. This is due to morals and reasoning are more affiliated with the church than theorizing and finding out how things work on a greater common scale. In an article from a book I found by Mikael Stenmark called How to Relate Science and Religion in part of it about half way through he sums this idea of religion and science complementing each other: “Peter Atkins talks about the different styles for theistic and scientific explanations, about what science can explain and what religion cannot explain, and how about the 'omnicompetence of science' and comes to the conclusion that religious believers are irrational, uninformed and weak”(Stenmark, 111). Both religion and science hold their own values and goals. However, they both find a way to explain elements of their field to people and in such a way that exemplifies their meaning.
Each source I used had much information regarding the subject of how religion and science are linked together however I picked out that they are complementary at the same time as parallel because I found it interesting how it was portrayed in the readings. The reading about how to teach the pope about science explains a lot more about the ethics and how religion leads to and plays a roll in science and the outside source talks about the same topics about how these two subjects although very different from one angle can be similar from another.
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope
Stenmark, Mikael. How to Relate Science and Religion : A Multidimensional Model. Boston: William B. Eerdmans Company, 2004.{ http://books.google.com/books?id=9w-7L393j_sC&dq=How+to+Relate+Science+and+Religion&pg=PP1&ots=_iUMZc1wTZ&source=bn&sig=4jfhj5VytSmhlzv0hOV4ZlnJpY0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA111,M1 }
“A hundred years ago we didn't understand the Big Bang,” Consolmangno says. “Now that we have the understanding of a universe that is big and expanding and changing, we can ask philosophical questions we would have known to ask, like 'What does it mean to have multiverses?' These are wonderful questions. Science isn't going to answer them, but science, by telling us what is there, causes us to ask these questions. It makes us go back to the seven days of creation-which is poetry, beautiful poetry, with a lesson underneath it-and says, 'Oh, the seventh day is God resting as a way of reminding us God doesn't do everything.' God built this universe but gave you and me the freedom to make choices within the universe”(Mason, 2).
Here is a great example of how religion can display another angle of the story even though it is outdated and been proven wrong by science. Science explains why many things occur and many things cannot be explained through science such as aspects of human life. When it comes to these aspects such as love, relationships, and friendships, religion can better explain them. This is due to morals and reasoning are more affiliated with the church than theorizing and finding out how things work on a greater common scale. In an article from a book I found by Mikael Stenmark called How to Relate Science and Religion in part of it about half way through he sums this idea of religion and science complementing each other: “Peter Atkins talks about the different styles for theistic and scientific explanations, about what science can explain and what religion cannot explain, and how about the 'omnicompetence of science' and comes to the conclusion that religious believers are irrational, uninformed and weak”(Stenmark, 111). Both religion and science hold their own values and goals. However, they both find a way to explain elements of their field to people and in such a way that exemplifies their meaning.
Each source I used had much information regarding the subject of how religion and science are linked together however I picked out that they are complementary at the same time as parallel because I found it interesting how it was portrayed in the readings. The reading about how to teach the pope about science explains a lot more about the ethics and how religion leads to and plays a roll in science and the outside source talks about the same topics about how these two subjects although very different from one angle can be similar from another.
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope
Stenmark, Mikael. How to Relate Science and Religion : A Multidimensional Model. Boston: William B. Eerdmans Company, 2004.{ http://books.google.com/books?id=9w-7L393j_sC&dq=How+to+Relate+Science+and+Religion&pg=PP1&ots=_iUMZc1wTZ&source=bn&sig=4jfhj5VytSmhlzv0hOV4ZlnJpY0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA111,M1 }
Genetic Superbabies: Ethical or Not?
While reading Micheal Manson's "How to Teach Science to the Pope" (found in our course readings), the issue of the ethics behind genetically enhanced food is called into question. This sparked a discussion involving religion, personal morals, and unfair advantages. The topic delved into even deeper ethical territory when in class we discussed the idea of tampering with human DNA to prevent genetic disease, birth defects, and even enhancements such as greater athleticism or intelligence.
Patrick Tucker writes in Genetic Ethics and Superbabies: Drawing the Lines Between Preventing Ailments and..., "Inoculating children in the womb against serious diseases or disorders is not, on its face, controversial. But is manipulating cells to guard against traits that are merely undesirable ethical or unethical? Who gets to draw the boundary?"
His question is one that I find quite intriguing. Who doesn't want to be able to have a kid that could have the genetic potential to be the greatest person on Earth? But does the fact that we can genetically alter our offspring to be the best mean it is alright to do so? Would the idea of survival of the fittest suddenly turn into survival of the ones who have the most money to become genetically superior?
How would we regulate what is considered a genetic fault worthy of correction? For example, a person might consider that having a relatively unattractive child is detrimental to their life experience as a whole. Who is to say that is not true to some extent?
A line has to be drawn eventually. The question is where, when, and what will the repercussions be. Will we become a society of predesigned super creatures? What will happen to the people left behind if we do?
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope
Tucker, Patrick. "Genetic Ethics and Superbabies: Drawing the Line Between preventing Ailments and..." The Futurist. January 1, 2008. http://www.allbusiness.com/medicine-health/diseases-disorders-infectious/6201461-1.html
Comments? Feel free to leave one in the comments section!
Garrett Burns: Science or Religion?
Since its dawn science has been raising controversy with predetermined religious views on the creation of the world and how it works. Each side has presented biased arguments which have aided in segregating the two outlooks on life. As time has progressed however, science has answered many questions and laid some religious philosophies to rest. However, there are certain questions which science has not been able to provide proven answers for. It is these questions that have given religious philosophies validity and a chance to step in and fill the void.
Michael Mason's 'How to teach science to the pope' article quotes an interesting view expressed by Guy Consolmagno. He states “If you think the universe is fundamentally good and that it’s an expression of a good God, then studying how the universe works is a way of becoming intimate with the Creator. It’s a kind of worship. And that’s been a big motivation for doing any kind of science.” His belief led me to wonder if the philosophies of science and religion could someday coexist in the minds of society.It seems that both sides have been willing to make sacrifices in an attempt to achieve a fundamental harmony. For example, in a Time article written by Dan Cray he states "Can Darwinian evolution withstand the criticisms of Christians who believe that it contradicts the creation account in the Book of Genesis? In recent years, creationism took on new currency as the spiritual progenitor of "intelligent design" (I.D.), a scientifically worded attempt to show that blanks in the evolutionary narrative are more meaningful than its very convincing totality." In other words religion is gaining a growing acceptance of certain aspects of Darwinism because of certain questions the theory left unanswered. Because of this developing lack of bias from both I believe society is being provided with the opportunity to obtain a secular understanding and a belief system derived from the collaboration of both scientific and religious philosophies.
Works Cited
1. Cray, Dan. "God vs. Science." Time. Nov. 2006. Oct. 2008.
2. Mason, Michael. "How to teach science to the pope." MSNBC. Aug. 2008. Oct. 2008.
Michael Mason's 'How to teach science to the pope' article quotes an interesting view expressed by Guy Consolmagno. He states “If you think the universe is fundamentally good and that it’s an expression of a good God, then studying how the universe works is a way of becoming intimate with the Creator. It’s a kind of worship. And that’s been a big motivation for doing any kind of science.” His belief led me to wonder if the philosophies of science and religion could someday coexist in the minds of society.It seems that both sides have been willing to make sacrifices in an attempt to achieve a fundamental harmony. For example, in a Time article written by Dan Cray he states "Can Darwinian evolution withstand the criticisms of Christians who believe that it contradicts the creation account in the Book of Genesis? In recent years, creationism took on new currency as the spiritual progenitor of "intelligent design" (I.D.), a scientifically worded attempt to show that blanks in the evolutionary narrative are more meaningful than its very convincing totality." In other words religion is gaining a growing acceptance of certain aspects of Darwinism because of certain questions the theory left unanswered. Because of this developing lack of bias from both I believe society is being provided with the opportunity to obtain a secular understanding and a belief system derived from the collaboration of both scientific and religious philosophies.
Works Cited
1. Cray, Dan. "God vs. Science." Time. Nov. 2006. Oct. 2008
2. Mason, Michael. "How to teach science to the pope." MSNBC. Aug. 2008. Oct. 2008
Shiloh Rousseau: What's news in science
Save the Bears! As we all know, global warming (which refers to an average increase in the Earth's temperature) is taking a devastating toll on our Earth's plant and animal life. Sadly, global warming doesn't neglect any species and the polar bears seem to be in the most dangerous of we don't do something to help the fight against global warming. There are currently about 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears in the Arctic. Sadly, however, scientists predict that by the year 2050, two thirds of those bears will be gone because of loss of Arctic sea ice. This leaves, roughly, 8,000 polar bears! It may be easier to comprehend this with a little bit of background information: Oceans cover about 70% of the Earth's surface and store heat. Ice in the Arctic is melting at a rate of 10% per decade. Over the past 100 years, the Earth's temperature has increased 1.2 to 1.4 degrees. Several factors, due to global warming, influence the decline in polar bear populations. Many polar bears rely on the Arctic ice for habitat, and when it melts, they have no place to live. They also depend on it for food, since they leap off of broken pieces of ice to hunt for fish. Since there isn't as much ice, bears are having to swim longer distances which has lead to an increase in the number of deaths caused by drowning. Because the bears are malnourished, they are not reproducing as often as they normally would and the babies are not as healthy and therefore have a lower chance of survival. Lastly, many of the polar bears are resorting to cannibalism due to lack of food. Global warming isn't the only thing devastating the polar bear population. Dust, soot, and harmful chemicals rise in the sky and settle in the Arctic, which the polar bears then swim in and hunt for food in. Legal hunting also kills over 700 bears a year. As sad as this mean seem, there is still hope! One person really can make a difference. If we all try to be more "green" and raise awareness about the dangerous effects of global warming, the polar bears may have a chance.
Dwight Stannard: Reading Connection #2 - Women's Role In The Scientific Revolution
The Scientific Revolution was a time of substantial progression in scientific thought and development...by men. The breakthroughs that took place happened under the hammer of a society ruled by a male dominant population. So where were all the women during these times of scientific flourishing? They seem to have been no where to be found. That was because they were keeping a low profile. At the time, women who stood out as individual or creative were usually deemed witches. If they were to ever speak their opinion, they would immediately become a subject of inspection. Many women were wrongly accused of being witches or performing witchcraft activities. Women were not allowed to have good ideas. They were not allowed to be heard, no matter the quality of their thoughts.
When a woman ever had thoughts that were of such good quality, they would resort to passing thoughts to men. Most times these men would be the husbands of the women. They had to be careful telling certain male individuals because if the wrong person got a hold of their ideas, there would be trouble.
It must have been very difficult for the women to feel appreciated during these times of hardship. Eventually the women race joined hands and stomped on the sexism that took place i the pervious years.
Shiloh Rousseau; Reading Connection #2
How to Teach Science to the Pope made me think about the connection between science and religion and why I hadn't ever thought of them together before. "Science is incapable of supplying answers to ultimate questions about why things exist and what their purpose is." Nicola Cabibbo, an Italian physicist once said this. And I disagree. I have nothing against religion, but I'm not religious at all. Therefore, I don't see how the "questions of the universe" can be solved using only religion. However, I do see and respect why other people could argue the oposite.
As I research the relationship between science and religion, I feel like I may be the only one who feels this way. Even Einstein argued the strong impact that religion has on science: "...the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research." So why am I arguing differently when I have all of these geniouses opposing my viewpoint?
Since elementary school, we have always learned theories like "The Big Bang." Never once was religion mentioned in any of my science classes. This might be because teachers weren't allowed to bring up religion in school, but nonetheless, without the mention of it or connection to science while I was learning about the creation of the universe, I never thought of it as having an impact.
I did find one person who seems to think a little bit like me. Unlike Cabibbo, Richard Dawkins believed that science can answer most anything. I think that I would have gotten along better with him! In fact, Dawkins thinks that if science can't answer something, nothing else can.
I can't imagine what it would be like to just sit around all day and try to answer all the "questions of the universe." My mind gets boggled just writing this! I think some things are just not meant to be known, and , even though it may be beneficial, maybe we're not meant to know how the universe was created. This kind of makes me wonder what would happen if somehow, sometime we were able to solve the mystery of whether or not religion or science played a bigger role in the creation of the universe. What would Cabibbo and Dawkins think?
Works Cited:
Einstein, Albert. "Religion and Science." New York Times 9 Nov. 1930: 36-40.
How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover 18 Aug. 2008.
As I research the relationship between science and religion, I feel like I may be the only one who feels this way. Even Einstein argued the strong impact that religion has on science: "...the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research." So why am I arguing differently when I have all of these geniouses opposing my viewpoint?
Since elementary school, we have always learned theories like "The Big Bang." Never once was religion mentioned in any of my science classes. This might be because teachers weren't allowed to bring up religion in school, but nonetheless, without the mention of it or connection to science while I was learning about the creation of the universe, I never thought of it as having an impact.
I did find one person who seems to think a little bit like me. Unlike Cabibbo, Richard Dawkins believed that science can answer most anything. I think that I would have gotten along better with him! In fact, Dawkins thinks that if science can't answer something, nothing else can.
I can't imagine what it would be like to just sit around all day and try to answer all the "questions of the universe." My mind gets boggled just writing this! I think some things are just not meant to be known, and , even though it may be beneficial, maybe we're not meant to know how the universe was created. This kind of makes me wonder what would happen if somehow, sometime we were able to solve the mystery of whether or not religion or science played a bigger role in the creation of the universe. What would Cabibbo and Dawkins think?
Works Cited:
Einstein, Albert. "Religion and Science." New York Times 9 Nov. 1930: 36-40.
How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover 18 Aug. 2008.
Women in Modern Science
It is hard to find scientific work done by women in during the time period of the scientific revolution. Some may wonder why this is? Some explanations for this is that most women were not allowed to have official education. The schools were mostly reserved for men. The only women that did get educated were the ones that were very well off. Of the women that did have the opportunity to become educated and were interested in getting involved with science, again it was difficult. The prestigious scientific organizations such as the Royal Society for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge were restricted to just men. This further limited the involvement of women. This does not mean that they were not involved however. There are scientific documents that were found to be translated by women. There is also the large possibility that the work that women had done was taken and then published by men. There could be lots of scientific discoveries that could really have been achieved by women but the men were only recognized for it because the women were not able to. (Watts).
Women in modern science are obviously much more involved than during the Scientific Revolution. However, science is still a field with a majority of its participants that are male. This reason for this is much harder to explain than during the scientific revolution. Most of the reasons for women not being involved during the scientific revolution have been resolved such as women not be allowed to be educated and women not being allowed into scientific organizations. Lawrence Summers, ex-president of Harvard University, had a couple of controversial theories that he stated in a speech that he made that got people in an uproar. The most controversial idea that he had was basically saying that women were not equal to men when it came to science based on genetics. This ideas does not make sense because there are plenty of women are highly advanced in scientific fields and that would not be possible if Summers was correct. We may never know why there are fewer women in scientific fields and maybe at some point it will not be that way. Here is a link to an article about the controversy that Lawrence Summers stirred up.
Women in modern science are obviously much more involved than during the Scientific Revolution. However, science is still a field with a majority of its participants that are male. This reason for this is much harder to explain than during the scientific revolution. Most of the reasons for women not being involved during the scientific revolution have been resolved such as women not be allowed to be educated and women not being allowed into scientific organizations. Lawrence Summers, ex-president of Harvard University, had a couple of controversial theories that he stated in a speech that he made that got people in an uproar. The most controversial idea that he had was basically saying that women were not equal to men when it came to science based on genetics. This ideas does not make sense because there are plenty of women are highly advanced in scientific fields and that would not be possible if Summers was correct. We may never know why there are fewer women in scientific fields and maybe at some point it will not be that way. Here is a link to an article about the controversy that Lawrence Summers stirred up.
Michael Thulander: Women in the Scientific Revolution
It seems to me that most of the women in the seventeenth century were in the home. For the most part they were doing household chores such as raising children, preparing meals, and taking care of the sick. This partially explains why women were so absent in science. Another reason for the scarcity of women was the fact that the witch trials were in full swing during the scientific revolution. This discouraged women even further from being outside of the norm. Coming out with scientific theories that people may not understand could have lead to the execution of a women scientist during this time. The fact that women were excluded from all formal institutions including the royal society, universities and even grammar schools, also did not help women gain knowledge.
Personally I feel like women had a major role in the minor sciences. Even though women were kept from study they still had a natural role in science through their household tasks. Women learned basic first aid and medicine by taking care of sick children and husbands. They were also skilled in the culinary sciences, constantly mixing different foods, herbs, and spices while preparing food for their families. Though women did not have any major breakthroughs in science they helped society by taking care of the sciences that are often overlooked.
Sources:
Watts, Ruth. "Gender, Science and Modernity In Seventeenth-century England." Paedagogica Historica. Feb. 2005: 79-93.
How Teach Science to the Pope
The article How to Teach Science to the Pope by Michael Mason better put into perspective for me the ongoing issue between science and religion. With insights from a few slightly different views you can better understand how the science side of the issue want their discoversies and further research to be viewed. " If you think the universe is fundamentally good and that it's an expression of a good God, then studying how the universe works is a way of becoming intimate with the creator" (Consolmagno). From a religious view i see this as a very good point, for if you believe that god created the universe then understanding is appreciating his creation. Also, the point that God gave us the freedom to make choices within the universe so why would further understanding the universe around us be such a problem.
I'm not saying i choose a certain side on the issue i just found this article very interesting and brought up great points. I respect the fact that rather than arguing and totally disagreeing they are seeking an understanding by putting the scientific studies into a different perspective for someone that is religious or leaning towards the religious side of the issue.
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discovery Magazine 18 Aug. 2008.
I'm not saying i choose a certain side on the issue i just found this article very interesting and brought up great points. I respect the fact that rather than arguing and totally disagreeing they are seeking an understanding by putting the scientific studies into a different perspective for someone that is religious or leaning towards the religious side of the issue.
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discovery Magazine 18 Aug. 2008.
Mike Harron, Reading Connection #2
Over the past few weeks we have been discussing women's roles during the scientific revolution. The Scientific Revolution took place during the 16th and 17th century. During this time women were looked down upon, less superior. Men were more dominant in the field or education and physical labor, whereas women were pretty much forced to stay home and maintain the house and keep the kids in line. Basically women were looked at as tools to keep the males happy when they go home. In Watt's reading, Gender, Science and Modernity in Seventeenth-Century England, he tells us how difficult it was for women to go to any kind of formal educational institution. The Article gives us a basic view of how women lived in that time and what was tolerated of them. If women were to have any kind of intelligence on the matter and if they attempted to participate, they were accused of being witches. The witch trials had a huge impact on how woman were viewed. However, women were viewed differently in different parts of the world. According to this reading, women In England were respected and they even had a queen, but it was tradition for the women to stay home and educate the kids, especially their daughters while their husbands would be off at crusades. Then there are the women in Japan, who were thought of just to have kids for the male and were looked at with disrespect. Any male back then could take credit for a women's findings without a problem. If a women were to go to school and get and education, then invent something extraordinary, any male back then could tell the authorities that she is a witch and he could get away with it, and then take credit for all of her findings. There is no doubt that this could have happened.
After the class discussions and reading the assigned articles, it is a lot easier to understand how women got to where they are now. There are many different explanations to why women were not recorded in scientific history, however, I feel that the witch craft explanation is one of the more reasonable answers to the question.
Sources
Watts, Ruth. "Gender, science and modernity in seventeenth-century England."Paedagogica Historica. 2005. 41, 1, 79-93. ISSN: 0030-9230.
Nosotro, Ritt. "Women in the Middle Ages." Hyper History. 26 Oct. 2008 .
How to Teach Science to the Pope Stephen Richards
In Masons article "How to teach science to the Pope" many controversial issues were brought up such as genetically modified (GM) plants, GM food, GM seeds, and cloning. These are all controversial subjects because of religious views and personal ethical views. This brings up the question "Could the growth of universal knowledge be stunted by religions role in scientific development? To put it in other words this means does religion hold back science? Would science be better off without religion?"
For science to be studied or discussed in the Vatican the subject has to have some relation to religion. "If you think the universe is fundamentally good and that it's an expression of a good god, then studying how the universe works is a way of becoming intimate with the creator. It's a kind of worship." pg.1. In summary a subject matter must be religious focused for it to be even considered worth studying within the walls of the Vatican in the eyes of the Pope and the followers.
"God built this universe but gave you and me the freedom to make choices within the universe" pg.2. Many religious followers look to god for an answer. They may live their life everyday looking for a sign or for god to speak to them what they should do leaving it up to god to make the decisions. On the other hand many scientists don't look to science for an answer. They use the process, or systematic study, and behavior of the natural world for the answers. Once the answer is thought to be found the scientists don't stop there. They will continue the process through observation and experiments until satisfied. But there are many scientist that may even challenge the observations and experiments and continue the process even further. The reason for this is because science can not physically answer the question but it can lead scientists to ask questions to come up with an answer.
Religion is not misleading but is a form of guiding people to making the right decision. Although religion can mislead some of its' own followers as they may look to a higher authority, such as the Pope, god, or other religious leaders, for an answer in place of making the decision on their own.
Religion does hold back science on the other hand it can be a good thing in that it may prevent science and scientists from becoming destructive or dangerous to society. The ethical views of some and religious views of others can hold back science due to their protesting or fear of the unknown. An example of this is the argument of cloning. Many people believe that cloning is wrong whereas others say it's a good idea such as using it for medical purposes. Even though the ability to clone is out and has been used the religious and ethical beliefs and manners prevent cloning. Especially the cloning of humans.
In conclusion who's responsibility is it to make the decisions for the world and its people. Is it up to the religious groups to control science or is it up to the scientist make the educational decision on what is right for or best for the world and its people?
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discovery Magazine 18 Aug. 2008
Gender, Science and Modernity
The 16th and 17th century when most of women didn’t have any power and were mistreated dramatically my gender. Their tasks were to stay home, cook, clean and making everything perfect. According to Ruth Watt’s article Gender, Science and Modernity in Seventeenth-century
Thinking about today's society I found asking myself this simple question: What is liberation for women today? Well, it’s everything that surrounds women today like love, money and power. Women use liberation to become free and do what ever they want. I found a short video of women who talked about this subject matter, and it’s amazing to hear and see how women became who they are today.
Watts, Ruth. "Gender, science and modernity in seventeenth-century
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Karl Markis: Women During the Scientific Revolution
Women have been historically treated as second-class citizens, restricted to obstinate chores such as house maintenance and manual labor. Men have deemed them as faint-hearted and feeble, unable to participate in academia and destined to raise children in the comforts and safety of home. This pessimistic, yet true perception of women was prevalent during the Scientific Revolution, though a few changes developed.
Women did not involve themselves in the Scientific Revolution because they “had largely been excluded from university learning during both the middle ages and the early modern period” (Danville). The overwhelming majority of Europeans did not have the wealth or initiative to pursue formal education. Citizens’ quality of life was poor compared to modern standards; they struggled to raise funds for food and shelter, and education naturally stood at the bottom of people’s priorities.
Proactive women from noble families who had the luxury of accessing formal education could and did make contributions to the Scientific Revolution, but they lacked an outlet to promote their ideas and be heard. Academic circles were solely comprised of men who would never dream of giving women the chance to prove themselves. Society in large did not want to hear an educated female’s thought provoking ideas towards subjects largely dominated by men. Ultimately, there was no audience for the women to preach ideas to.
Society was so against women expressing their views on religion and science that the concept of witchcraft became thoroughly practiced to explain why a household wife would ever attempt to break of the barriers society has placed on them. Some European religious fanatics claimed women were “credulous, and since the chief aim of the devil is to corrupt faith, therefore he attacks them. Women are naturally more impressionable, and more ready to receive the influence of a disembodied spirit” (iastate.edu). The great witch craze that ensued from late Renaissance to mid Scientific Revolution lead to thousands of women being executed.
Sweeping generalizations cannot be made about women playing absolutely no role in the intellectual flourish of the Scientific Revolution. They may have used their husbands as outlets to voice their opinions, which is an idea that cannot be proven because men unabashedly took credit for everything, even if the information wasn’t their own. The lingering question of just how women participated in the Scientific Revolution remains unanswered, as we can only interpret that time in history from the male-dominated historians and texts that prevailed.
Sources:
Hatch, Robert. The Scientific Revolution. web.clas.ufl.edu. October 23, 2008. <http://web.clas.ufl.edu/ users/rhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Teaching/03sr-definition-concept.htm>.
Scientific Revolution. public.iastate.edu. October 23, 2008. <http:// www.public.iastate.edu/~hist.380/revolution.html>.
Women did not involve themselves in the Scientific Revolution because they “had largely been excluded from university learning during both the middle ages and the early modern period” (Danville). The overwhelming majority of Europeans did not have the wealth or initiative to pursue formal education. Citizens’ quality of life was poor compared to modern standards; they struggled to raise funds for food and shelter, and education naturally stood at the bottom of people’s priorities.
Proactive women from noble families who had the luxury of accessing formal education could and did make contributions to the Scientific Revolution, but they lacked an outlet to promote their ideas and be heard. Academic circles were solely comprised of men who would never dream of giving women the chance to prove themselves. Society in large did not want to hear an educated female’s thought provoking ideas towards subjects largely dominated by men. Ultimately, there was no audience for the women to preach ideas to.
Society was so against women expressing their views on religion and science that the concept of witchcraft became thoroughly practiced to explain why a household wife would ever attempt to break of the barriers society has placed on them. Some European religious fanatics claimed women were “credulous, and since the chief aim of the devil is to corrupt faith, therefore he attacks them. Women are naturally more impressionable, and more ready to receive the influence of a disembodied spirit” (iastate.edu). The great witch craze that ensued from late Renaissance to mid Scientific Revolution lead to thousands of women being executed.
Sweeping generalizations cannot be made about women playing absolutely no role in the intellectual flourish of the Scientific Revolution. They may have used their husbands as outlets to voice their opinions, which is an idea that cannot be proven because men unabashedly took credit for everything, even if the information wasn’t their own. The lingering question of just how women participated in the Scientific Revolution remains unanswered, as we can only interpret that time in history from the male-dominated historians and texts that prevailed.
Sources:
Hatch, Robert. The Scientific Revolution. web.clas.ufl.edu. October 23, 2008. <http://web.clas.ufl.edu/ users/rhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Teaching/03sr-definition-concept.htm>.
Scientific Revolution. public.iastate.edu. October 23, 2008. <http:// www.public.iastate.edu/~hist.380/revolution.html>.
Readings Connection gender science and Modernity nick beck
During our Scientific Revolution classes we have talked about the woman's role in the scientific revolution. It seems that all of the recorded history has been mainly in favor of men. I believe that although most of the discoveries were made by men, it can't be possible that all of these breakthroughs were purely male. Somewhere in time, there must have been a woman who gave advise to a great philosopher or artist. Many things is history don't give enough credit to females.
The article gender science and modernity gives the reader a little insight to how things were going in England during the seventeenth century. This article tells about how society viewed women. Women were thought of as property instead of people, very different from our society today. The article talks about how women were supposed to keep up on chores around the house, while the mans job was to work and make money for the family. The woman was supposed to care for children and make sure everything is clean and tidy.
After thinking about this, it's not hard to figure out why women were not recorded in history. It's very possible that the first person to write about medicine, learned it from a woman, and recorded it as his own. Always something to think about.
thanks for reading
Watts, Ruth. "Gender, science and modernity in seventeenth-century England." Paedagogica Historica. 2005. 41, 1, 79-93. ISSN: 0030-9230.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57XBJbnOrQg
The article gender science and modernity gives the reader a little insight to how things were going in England during the seventeenth century. This article tells about how society viewed women. Women were thought of as property instead of people, very different from our society today. The article talks about how women were supposed to keep up on chores around the house, while the mans job was to work and make money for the family. The woman was supposed to care for children and make sure everything is clean and tidy.
After thinking about this, it's not hard to figure out why women were not recorded in history. It's very possible that the first person to write about medicine, learned it from a woman, and recorded it as his own. Always something to think about.
thanks for reading
Watts, Ruth. "Gender, science and modernity in seventeenth-century England." Paedagogica Historica. 2005. 41, 1, 79-93. ISSN: 0030-9230.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57XBJbnOrQg
Women In Science
In class we have explored the reasons explaining where all the women were during the Scientific Revolution. We read an article titled Gender, Science, and Modernity in Seventeenth-century England and discussed options from a lack of interest in the study to the idea that women were not educated at the time. It is a possibility that many women were not interested in the study of science and therefore were not seen as having a role in the Scientific Revolution, but there are other reasons that seem more probable. Women, at the time, were not given the same opportunity of education as men were. Therefore, any woman who was interested in scientific theories and experiments were not respected because it was a consensus that they had no educational background to base their beliefs upon. Men were also very controlling of women at the time so it is very likely that those who were interested in science were not permitted, by their husbands, to participate in the studies of the time. There is another option, however. Maybe women were present during the Scientific Revolution. It is possible that women spoke through the men around them to get their points of view across about scientific theories. All of the above possibilities have crossed my mind when discussing this topic in class. However, while reading an article from The Ithacan, another idea was presented.
Maybe women biologically don’t have the same capabilities as men when it comes to the study of science or math. This article, written by a guest speaker at a conference at Harvard University where President Lawrence Summers spoke, discusses Summers’ views about the topic. Summers thinks that it is probable that women don’t have the genetic abilities when it comes to science and math. However, there is no solid evidence to prove Summers’ theory. There is evidence though that fewer women are attracted to or interested in the studies of math and science than men. This brings us back to one of my initial thoughts which was that women were simply not interested in the study of science during the Scientific Revolution.Monday, October 20, 2008
Dangers of Mannerism
The Dangers of Mannerism
We have all listened in on conversations between others, no one wants to admit to it because it’s rude but we do it nonetheless. But have you ever dissected someone’s conversation? Have you ever broken down what one person was trying to do to the other, or why specific words were chosen over others, especially when the conversation involves deep emotion? Emotions or thought process brought up by death or maybe a parent explaining a tricky subject to a minor can elicit very interesting changes in speech patterns if you pay attention. Why do we skew the truth by saying things like he “passed away” as opposed to he died, it doesn’t change the fact that someone is dead. As for myself, I think the answer is very simple, people don’t really want the truth, because the truth is pure and bare, with no margin for doubt or uncertainty, which means in some instances there is no chance for hope. That is why we use euphemisms, for hope. As a species we need to feel there is something more, that we “pass” to another plane of existence, that all is not lost in translation because otherwise people would look at death with despair rather than acceptance. But so why then are euphemisms dangerous, why should we care that we constantly cloud the truth with a mask of hope?
Euphemisms aren’t dangerous when used to shield the weak, as I’ve described above. It’s when euphemisms stick for all purposes of the word that they do damage, because at heart they are “a form of thought control, created to conceal meaning with the purpose of hiding a truth” which also “distort reality, becoming justifications for suppression, mistreatment and isolation from the mainstream.” So basically, Ronnie Bennett from Timegoesby.net and I are of the same opinion that euphemisms are language deformers. Euphemisms have the tendency to become taken too literally. They become the word they were sheltering, thereby skewing the real meaning of a situation. But the dangers of euphemisms aren’t limited to the spoken or written word; art is also subject to this deformation.
Mannerists were of the opinion that art should be about beauty and the ideal. The artists of the mannerist ideal chose to ignore the blemishes of their models, to paint in the dead spots of fruit and to bathe everything in a forgiving light. Others, however, felt that ignoring such details was nothing but ignorance of the truth of life. Caravaggio (1573-1610) was one such artist. When painting images of the divine or of divinity in general he would highlight and embellish all the natural features of the model, his images of divinity were held on human standards and through human forms, not the conception of perfection. His work was thought to be based on pure shock value, but Caravaggio had no interest in shocking anyone, he just wanted to show the truth in life, and the truth he saw wasn’t always beautiful.
So I leave you with a question, is it better to be informed and disheartened or sheltered and hopeful?
Works Cited
Gombrich. "The Story of Art". New York, New York. Phaidon press inc. 2007. pp 390-394
Bennett, Ronnie. "The Danger of Euphemism". Time Goes By. 7 October 2005. 20 October 2007
http://www.timegoesby.net/weblog/2005/10/the_danger_of_e.html
We have all listened in on conversations between others, no one wants to admit to it because it’s rude but we do it nonetheless. But have you ever dissected someone’s conversation? Have you ever broken down what one person was trying to do to the other, or why specific words were chosen over others, especially when the conversation involves deep emotion? Emotions or thought process brought up by death or maybe a parent explaining a tricky subject to a minor can elicit very interesting changes in speech patterns if you pay attention. Why do we skew the truth by saying things like he “passed away” as opposed to he died, it doesn’t change the fact that someone is dead. As for myself, I think the answer is very simple, people don’t really want the truth, because the truth is pure and bare, with no margin for doubt or uncertainty, which means in some instances there is no chance for hope. That is why we use euphemisms, for hope. As a species we need to feel there is something more, that we “pass” to another plane of existence, that all is not lost in translation because otherwise people would look at death with despair rather than acceptance. But so why then are euphemisms dangerous, why should we care that we constantly cloud the truth with a mask of hope?
Euphemisms aren’t dangerous when used to shield the weak, as I’ve described above. It’s when euphemisms stick for all purposes of the word that they do damage, because at heart they are “a form of thought control, created to conceal meaning with the purpose of hiding a truth” which also “distort reality, becoming justifications for suppression, mistreatment and isolation from the mainstream.” So basically, Ronnie Bennett from Timegoesby.net and I are of the same opinion that euphemisms are language deformers. Euphemisms have the tendency to become taken too literally. They become the word they were sheltering, thereby skewing the real meaning of a situation. But the dangers of euphemisms aren’t limited to the spoken or written word; art is also subject to this deformation.
Mannerists were of the opinion that art should be about beauty and the ideal. The artists of the mannerist ideal chose to ignore the blemishes of their models, to paint in the dead spots of fruit and to bathe everything in a forgiving light. Others, however, felt that ignoring such details was nothing but ignorance of the truth of life. Caravaggio (1573-1610) was one such artist. When painting images of the divine or of divinity in general he would highlight and embellish all the natural features of the model, his images of divinity were held on human standards and through human forms, not the conception of perfection. His work was thought to be based on pure shock value, but Caravaggio had no interest in shocking anyone, he just wanted to show the truth in life, and the truth he saw wasn’t always beautiful.
So I leave you with a question, is it better to be informed and disheartened or sheltered and hopeful?
Works Cited
Gombrich. "The Story of Art". New York, New York. Phaidon press inc. 2007. pp 390-394
Bennett, Ronnie. "The Danger of Euphemism". Time Goes By. 7 October 2005. 20 October 2007
http://www.timegoesby.net/weblog/2005/10/the_danger_of_e.html
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Tell Me Science, Does Alcohol Affect Sexual Behavior?
Alcohol and sex… the link between the two has long been debated. Why do drunk people seem to carelessly fall in love with strangers on sight? How come your standards seem to suddenly hit rock bottom as the alcohol starts pouring in, and you just seem to find everyone more lovable? These questions have seeped into the minds of socialites to the point where science has gotten itself involved.
Surprisingly, there haven’t been many scientific attempts to investigate the idea that people seem to find others more attractive when drunk. That is, until now. In 2003, British psychologists measured the effect of moderate alcohol consumption on how attractive males and females rated unfamiliar faces. Eighty buzzed college students became unknowing participants in the experiment.
Researchers traveled bars and clubs surrounding campuses, tempting easily manipulative students with free beer under the rule they forego an experiment. Each participant was shown 118 photographs and asked to rate them for attractiveness. Results showed that students only found faces of members from the opposite sex more appealing after hitting the hard liquor.
Previous experiments have shown that drunkards are more willing to say bye to morals and dignity by having ravenous sex left and right with anyone they can get a hold of, especially if they’re attracted to someone’s face. Hmm… so drinking makes you more attracted to faces, while spontaneous sex is likelier when you’re drawn to a person’s face.
Surely researchers weren’t content with just one experiment forever deciding this issue, right? Apparently not, because another group of British researchers were hungry for fresh victims… I mean subjects for a similar experiment to test attraction influenced by alcohol. This time around researchers scavenged restaurants for participants who wanted a free beer. It didn’t take much to find 84 college kids willing to trade some of their time for beer. Not all the drinks served had alcohol though. Half were simply placebos that simply tasted like beer, but had no alcohol whatsoever!
15 minutes pass by and the researchers show photographs of men and women the subject’s age. Just like in the other experiment, people rated faces sexier when buzzed, but something interesting occurred. Contrary to the previous experiment, those with alcohol also rated faces of the same sex as more attractive! Oh boy, this caused some heated debate.
One explanation is that the first experiment was carried out in the highly sexualized atmospheres of clubs and bars, where the only reason to go there (let’s be honest) is for sex. Therefore, people are focusing their love on people they’d want to sleep with. In the second experiment’s restaurant setting, people are more able to talk about who they think looks better in general, because sex isn’t the first thing popping into their mind. It’s really anyone’s guess as to why the results differ, but one thing’s for sure. When you drink, everyone just seems to be slightly more tolerable for that special loving.
Works Cited:
•http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/drugs-alcohol/mg19926694.500-beer-goggles-are-real--its-official.htmlhuman/drugs-alcohol/mg19926694.500-beer-goggles-are-real--its-official.htmlhuman/drugs-alcohol/mg19926694.500-beer-goggles-are-real--its-official.html
•http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/addi/abstract.00008514-200308000-00009.htm;jsessionid=Lrnf1W5PmcxYS1p6SpVCc19nwpsvp5s1wnfnpnLqMzyPG9TsQsgQ!1162365647!181195628!8091!-1200308000-00009.htm;jsessionid=Lrnf1W5PmcxYS1p6SpVCc19nwpsvp5s1wnfnpnLqMzyPG9TsQsgQ!1162365647!181195628!8091!-1
•http://psychology.psy.bris.ac.uk/people/marcusmunafo.htmo.htm
•http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/agn065v1gn065v1
Surprisingly, there haven’t been many scientific attempts to investigate the idea that people seem to find others more attractive when drunk. That is, until now. In 2003, British psychologists measured the effect of moderate alcohol consumption on how attractive males and females rated unfamiliar faces. Eighty buzzed college students became unknowing participants in the experiment.
Researchers traveled bars and clubs surrounding campuses, tempting easily manipulative students with free beer under the rule they forego an experiment. Each participant was shown 118 photographs and asked to rate them for attractiveness. Results showed that students only found faces of members from the opposite sex more appealing after hitting the hard liquor.
Previous experiments have shown that drunkards are more willing to say bye to morals and dignity by having ravenous sex left and right with anyone they can get a hold of, especially if they’re attracted to someone’s face. Hmm… so drinking makes you more attracted to faces, while spontaneous sex is likelier when you’re drawn to a person’s face.
Surely researchers weren’t content with just one experiment forever deciding this issue, right? Apparently not, because another group of British researchers were hungry for fresh victims… I mean subjects for a similar experiment to test attraction influenced by alcohol. This time around researchers scavenged restaurants for participants who wanted a free beer. It didn’t take much to find 84 college kids willing to trade some of their time for beer. Not all the drinks served had alcohol though. Half were simply placebos that simply tasted like beer, but had no alcohol whatsoever!
15 minutes pass by and the researchers show photographs of men and women the subject’s age. Just like in the other experiment, people rated faces sexier when buzzed, but something interesting occurred. Contrary to the previous experiment, those with alcohol also rated faces of the same sex as more attractive! Oh boy, this caused some heated debate.
One explanation is that the first experiment was carried out in the highly sexualized atmospheres of clubs and bars, where the only reason to go there (let’s be honest) is for sex. Therefore, people are focusing their love on people they’d want to sleep with. In the second experiment’s restaurant setting, people are more able to talk about who they think looks better in general, because sex isn’t the first thing popping into their mind. It’s really anyone’s guess as to why the results differ, but one thing’s for sure. When you drink, everyone just seems to be slightly more tolerable for that special loving.
Works Cited:
•http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/drugs-alcohol/mg19926694.500-beer-goggles-are-real--its-official.htmlhuman/drugs-alcohol/mg19926694.500-beer-goggles-are-real--its-official.htmlhuman/drugs-alcohol/mg19926694.500-beer-goggles-are-real--its-official.html
•http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/addi/abstract.00008514-200308000-00009.htm;jsessionid=Lrnf1W5PmcxYS1p6SpVCc19nwpsvp5s1wnfnpnLqMzyPG9TsQsgQ!1162365647!181195628!8091!-1200308000-00009.htm;jsessionid=Lrnf1W5PmcxYS1p6SpVCc19nwpsvp5s1wnfnpnLqMzyPG9TsQsgQ!1162365647!181195628!8091!-1
•http://psychology.psy.bris.ac.uk/people/marcusmunafo.htmo.htm
•http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/agn065v1gn065v1
Friday, October 10, 2008
Wave Power: The Next Green Energy
Wave energy converters are yet another option for a renewable energy source. The producer of the leading wave energy converters are Pelamis Wave Power. They have started the first commercial wave farm off of the coast of Portugal. The farm can produce 2.25 megawatts or 750 kilowatts for each of the three converters. This is a substantial amount of energy being produced for something that is just floating in the ocean. If this first attempt at the wave farm is successful with the three "sea snakes" that they have in the ocean now, the plan is to expand the farm to 25 Pelamis Wave Converters or PWECs. (Here is a YouTube clip that better explains how PWECs work). This expansion will allow the farm to produce enough energy to power 15,000 homes in Portugal. This amount of energy is significant. This wave farm is extremely significant because if it does turn out to be successful it may be a form of energy that other countries can seriously consider. Any country that has an oceanic border could potentially use these energy converters. The PWECs could be used in conjunction with other forms of renewable energy and in doing so we could substantially reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. If this planet is going to be saved from potential dangers such as global warming and a depletion of all of our fossil fuels we are going to have to start integrating more and more renewable resources. It is imperative that we act now before it is too late.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Google and the Internet
Reading Connections #1
Garrett Burns: Google and the Internet
Nicholas Carr’s “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” article is easily relatable to any moderate computer user today. He poses an important question that I think deserves attention from today’s society. Although I do not agree that Google is the only contributor to making us collectively more stupid, I do believe that it can be held partially responsible for a global change of thought processing and how we obtain information. As stated in Carr’s article by Marshall McLuhan, while referring to media such as Google: “They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought.”
So, is the way in which we process information being altered? In retrospect, this concept seems rather plausible. With the unlimited amount of Internet sources available for the general public, our “need” for instant gratification is becoming more prevalent. We will “skim” a site in search of a certain piece of information. Once we are satisfied, we will move on to another site in search of another piece of information that interests us. I believe that this process of absorbing information is rubbing off on other aspects of our lives. Tasks such as reading, writing, and even attentiveness during conversation are becoming more of a struggle for me and many others.
Although Carr states “We still await the long-term neurological and psychological experiments that will provide a definitive picture of how Internet use affects cognition,” the effects are becoming increasingly recognizable and noteworthy. The best solution, in my opinion, is for us to put effort into writing and reading through books without interruption, instead of relying on the Internet as our source of information.
Also, here is an interesting video on the expected future of the internet and some proposals on how to make it more legitimate. With the changes suggested in this video, a new kind of internet appears to be on the horizon; a type of internet which may provide only valid information to browsers. This modification could even hinder the foreseeable problems that Google and other web pages have created for focusing and learning.
Works Cited
http://2008scientificrevs210-03.blogspot.com/2008/09/course-readings.html
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The
Monday, October 6, 2008
Where does Google taking us? by Andrei
Is it really true that technology like Google making us stupid? Mr. Carr sure thinks so, and Google gives people ability to figure things out with out hardly any effort. When I moved to US, my dad always sent me to a dictionary when I asked him the meaning of a word I didn’t know. It was kind of a pain because an instant answer from Google would be awesome back them. Now, look around and you will see how people find ways to make thinking, deciding and judging as simple as possible. So, it’s not a surprise that Google is loved as it is. By not having what you want at your finger tips makes people actually do work and who wants to do that. The generation of college students now entering the new technology world and every generation following them will never look back at old ways (if they live in a world of "cyberspace”). So people need to question; what will happen to our future and the future of our children’s mind, when they have everything at a “push of a button”.
Now lets look at the positive side of Google. As The Future of Reading article point out, Google made things easier and faster. Even the “Pulitzer prize-winning journalist David Vise details the remarkable rise of Google from a $US1 million beginning to what is now a $US40 billion giant, accessed by more than 64 million people a day, in more than 100 languages.” That’s incredible if you ask me. So if you think about Google doesn’t make us stupid, in the way it only makes us bored, because it’s becoming more and more repetitive around the world.
Thank you for reading,
“The Future of
What's New(s) in Science: 3D solar cells
Take a trip back to seventh grade; a time when you and your friends were discovering a world of hormones, peer pressure, and a competition to become popular. You were focusing on the social aspects of middle school. Most of you were not thinking about alternative energy and how to efficiently use the sun as a means of electrical power. William Yuan, however, was well on his way to a scientific discovery of just that.
Twelve year-old William Yuan from Beaverton, Oregon spent the past two years of his life studying the concept of 3D solar cells created by researchers of Georgia Tech. 3D solar cells are a fairly new concept in science. In comparison to 2D cells, the 3D design absorbs 500 times more visible light as well as UV light. These solar cells contain miniscule “towers” or “skyscrapers.” It is between these towers that the PV cells trap and absorb light. When photons hit the PV cells, electrons are released and carried through the PV coating, creating an electrical charge. Because of the 3D design of these cells, light can be absorbed from many different angles, meaning that even on the cloudiest day in which the sun’s rays are scattered, the 3D solar cell can fully absorb the sun’s light. William Yuan has made additional improvements upon the design created by the researchers at Georgia Tech. With his advancements, William was given a $25,000 scholarship.
So while every other student in the seventh grade is wondering who is the latest subject of talk around school, William Yuan is wondering which manufacturer he should choose to build a prototype of his 3D solar cell design. At the young age of twelve, it appears that William is well on his way to a bright and successful future.Work Cited
“3D Solar Cells Make Trackers Obsolete.” Treehugger. 13 April 2007. 26 September 2008 <http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/3d_solar_cells.php>.
Lent, Christina. “Seventh-grader shines with solar cell research.” Beaverton Valley Times. 16 September 2008. 27 September 2008. <http://www.beavertonvalleytimes.com/news/story.php?story_id=122109656865633500>.
“Nano-Manhattan: 3D Solar Cells Boost Efficiency While Reducing Size, Weight and Complexity of Photovoltaic Arrays.” Georgia Tech Research News. 11 April 2007. 26 September 2008. <http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/3d-solar.htm>.
Schwartz, Ariel. “12 Year Old Boy Invents New Type of Solar Cell.” Clean Technica. 17 September 2008. 27 September 2008. <http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/17/12-year-old-boy-invents-new-type-of-solar-cell/comment-page-3/>.
“William Yuan, a 12 year-old, Invented New Type of 3D Solar Cell.” The Green Optimistic. 18 September 2008. 27 September 2008. <http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/09/18/william-yuan-3d-solar-cell/>.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)