A tenuous understanding: written by Thomas Triplet

Our class of 20 or so students was presented with a simple question a few weeks ago. What are the possible positive and negative outcomes of the advancement and furtherance of science? Now the answers to this question ranged from enhanced artificial intelligence and cures for all diseases to creating black holes and weapons more dangerous than our current nuclear arsenal. However, interestingly enough there were a lot of the same responses found on both sides, such as the before mentioned AI. Some students proposed that true AI would break out and enslave humanity; others felt that such AI would help cease much of the human suffering dealt by dangerous jobs and aid to the general convenience and comfort of people everywhere. The point being that with every possible good there is a possible negative outcome, no matter what the advancement. Cures for every ailment will never known to a capitalistic society for the simple fact that drug companies would never allow themselves to lose all business, but that’s a rant for another day.
Out of our class discussions we mused upon the reasons for why the public loves to highlight the negative aspects of science more so than the positive. I would be forced to play the devil’s advocate in this situation for the simple fact that people react much more strongly to fear than mild curiosity and amazement. Therefore, the general public response to science is delineated from our natural fear of new things or of things which we don’t truly understand. Imagine yourself in the shoes of the first king of China, being presented with a strange device which is famed to tell time. Watching as a small machine moves on its own accord, wouldn't you think it were alive? Wouldn't you be forced to view it as a living thing on the sheer basis that it moves under its own power? And wouldn't the individual responsible for it be framed under the context of being powerful or mystical in a sense that he or she could bring inanimate objects to life? These are the questions raised by Steven Shapin in The Scientific Revolution (pp 37). Viewing scientists as makers of monsters and arcane devices is our response to this fear. Chris Mooney’s article “Anthrax and the Mad Scientist” lights on this subject and pulls upon the ease of which we return to the mad scientist stereotype. He pushes the notion of how scientists are truly undeserving of such stereotypes based on the responsibility they are taking in their practices. For instance, the 1975 Asilomar Conference barred certain types of experimentation and put limits on others. Yet people are quick to take to fear. The anthrax scare threw scientists into that unforgiving light of stereotypes once again by reaffirming how dangerous the knowledge these scientists possess really is.

Here is the link to the article which I have mentioned: http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/anthrax-and-the-mad-scientist/

Works Cited
Mooney, Chris. “Anthrax and the Mad Scientist.” Science Progress. 13 August 2008. 27 September 2008 .

Shapin, Steven. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago press, 1996.

Energy...From Space!

The most abundant energy source that the Earth has at its disposal is the sun. But the conditions for collecting sunlight are not always ideal. Cloud coverage and the number of hours of daylight are just a few of the problems with collecting and using solar energy to its full potential. However, soon those obstacles may be overcome.

A new technology has been developed which allows us to transmit energy via radio waves across long distances. The benefits? Satellites could be used to collect pure sunlight 24/7 and beam it right down to Earth to our homes. To top it all off, its 100% green renewable energy.

This technology could be used to transmit electrical energy to third world countries that do not have the infrastructure set up to distribute energy to homes. Emergency areas where the existing infrastructure has been destroyed can use this method of distributing energy as a temporary substitute.

The potential benefits of further developing and using this type of energy are very promising. Soon we may not even have to have power lines directing energy into our homes.

Sources: CNN.com, NYTimes.com

Comments? Questions? Feel free to use the comments section!

Liquid Body Armor

Imagine what it would be like to feel like a "super hero" when bullets just bounce off you. Well, in recent news, US military scientists and engineers are developing and designing a new kind of armor. This new armor is so high tech, it’s liquid, as you can check out at this Howstuffworks.com demo. They call it Liquid Body Armor; it’s strong like a 2 inch metal plate, can cover virtually every part on a human body, and is light weight and extremely flexible.

This armor uses new kinds of materials or what Science Daily calls "smart materials", materials that can sense and respond to change in the environment, either through the application of electricity or magnetism, or to changes in temperature. The US military emphasizes that this new armor is a break through in technology and possibly a new way to protect soldiers and their vulnerable body parts. In the future it could be a way to protect your self and your family.

It’s interesting to see how the military is thinking to switch their focus from weapons to defenses. I think it’s an important change. Bringing more alive soldiers back and having a new way to protect their lives.

Check out this video on Liquid Body Armor

Thank you for reading.

Stephen Richards and What's New(s) In Science

Electrifying or full of Air?

I decided to compare two cars, the electric, and the car powered by air (created by Tata Motors) due to being "revolutionary idea" of these products possibly slowing down the effects of global warming.  But once I did all of my research I found the electric car is more of a revolutionary idea than the air car.  How can electric beat out air?  Easy due to the air doesn't actually exist yet.  The manufacturers are still working on bringing the product out to the consumer but they are not there just yet.  They have created some models for testing but at this point I wouldn't take one for a test drive as it is not considered safe.  The air car is not equipped with airbags or hold any of the "American Safety Standards."  

I found my sources to be reliable such as CNN which is an internationally recognized news sources.  It has a credible reputation because it is rarely criticized for delivering incorrect news to the public.  It is often looked at for a main source of information such as the huge coverage of 9-11.  The other sources I used such as Forbes Inc, and Popular Mechanics are creditable due to the quality of their publications.  Forbes Inc for example has been in business since 1917.  They publicize what people are interested in reading, what they want to know, and they deliver it truthfully.

Tesla Motors is a new company producing a car that can go from 0 to 60 miles per hour in 3.9 seconds.  Talk about fast!  Almost as fast as the Lamborghini Diablo that can go from 0 to 60 miles per hour in 3.4 seconds.  Telsa Motors, can be considered biased toward its product because at this point it is one of the few companies working on such a car and wants its products out there.  The company is working on one product which is battery powered cars to help reduce the amount of emissions produced, compared to Ford Motor which sells gas powered cars and hybrids. Telsa's website not only gives information about the product but promotes the cars, in place of a news article that may look at the pros and cons of the cars.

Sources:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0505/058.html

http://www.motorauthority.com/tata-backed-air-powered-car-in-us-by-2010.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html

http://www.teslamotors.com/

http://venturebeat.com/2008/01/10/27-electric-cars-companies-ready-to-take-over-the-road/

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/electric-car.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/08/08/air.car/index.html

Geothermal Heating and Cooling!

    Geothermal Heating and cooling is a great concept that will help our world become 'green'. Geothermal heating and cooling essentially uses the ground temperature 8-200 feet below the earths surface to heat and cool our homes. In the summer air is taken from the home and put underground where the temperature is cooler. Inversely in the winter heat is brought from the ground into the house.
    The temperature being hargvested, although a static temperature, through compression tanks it can still reach temperatures to heat your entire house as well as water for hot showers and washing dishes. This is great because it eliminates two things that have to use non recyclable energy sources out of our homes. This will save money as well as save our environment. There are many good things about Geothermal heating and cooling such as it can save 40-70 percent off a monthly energy bill.
    I find it fascinating that ground temperature can heat and cool an entire household. The pool and hot tub at the condo my family owns in Florida is heated by geothermal heating and cooling. Many companies and homes are starting to adapt this method of heating and cooling. Here at Champlain College we are using this for the new building they are constructing. This, over the next couple years, will easily pay for its self and continuously save the college money.
    This technology is truly revolutionary because it have the ability to harvest a very abundant resource and use it to control temperature in a home. Although it has been around for a few years, it is now becoming more affordable as well as the technology has been perfected and adapted. It is more probable to find the systems and will most likely become more common as it develops further.
   D Displayed blow is a video advertising this product and explains more on how it works as well as how it can help. Take notice how small the system really is, it takes up no more room then a traditional heating and cooling system and no additional maintenance. Installation is mainly the hassle of the system that deters people away.

    The man in the video is Don Zeman the founder of Homefront news and advice, a source of information on homeowner repairs and protections. He talks about everything from how to protect gutters to how to unclog a toilet. He does radio shows in order to educate the homeowner on how to handle certain tasks as well as does informational videos in order to educate. The above video was created to show how the geothermal system can help cut the energy bill and save up for something else.
http://www.homefront.com/

Geothermal Technology. 2008 . GeoComfort. Sept.8,2008 http://www.geocomfort.com/geothermal-technology.

"Mad" Scientists and the Unreasonable Fear of the Large Hadron Collider

I was browsing the internet earlier today when I came across a blog article that I found a bit worrying.

In the past, we have discussed where we get our news from and if the source is reliable. I am disappointed to say that one of my most trusted tech news sites, CNet.com, is spreading ideas that I find ignorant through people who contribute to popular blogs on their website.

Apparently, Chris Matyszczyk of CNet.com's Technically Incorrect is afraid that the LHC is going to destroy our world. In the post he specifically refers to the scientists as "mad" without any evidence other than the clever youtube video rap that scientists made.

Earlier in the year we discussed the common view of scientists in today's society. Many of the perceptions that we came up with were common stereotypes that scientists were "mad" or crazy in some way. Matyszczyk's post contributes to these stereotypes and further perpetuates them.

However, there is one piece of good news from this blog. It seems that Matyszczyk's readers are much more up to date and reasonable with the information about the Large Hadron Collider. Many comments accuse Matyszczyk of being ignorant and spreading uninformed ideas about the LHC to scare the public.

I know that CNet.com itself is not responsible for the blog content on its site (only the actual news) but it still worries me that this piece of media was so massively spread via their website. I truly realize now how having multiple sources of news can help a person fully understand all sides of the story. If I had taken this post at face value, I would have been a very poorly informed individual indeed.

What are your thoughts? Feel free to use the comments section!

Course Readings

Abrams, Nancy and Joel Primack. "Cosmology and 21st-Century Culture." Science. September 7, 2001. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5536/1769

Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic. 2007. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

Davies, Norman. Europe: A History. New York: HarperPerennial, 1998

Dennis, Rutledge M. “Social Darwinism, Scientific Racism, and the Metaphysics of Race.”
Journal of Negro Education. Summer 1995. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3626/is_199507/ai_n8730395

Gombrich, E.H. The Story of Art. New York: Phaidon Press, 2007

Kalb, Claudia. “In Our Blood.” Newsweek. February 6, 2006. http://www.newsweek.com/id/57201/

Linden, David J. The Accidental Mind. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2007.

Matthews, Michael R., ed. The Scientific Background to Modern Philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub, 1989

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

Ptolemy. "Saving the Appearances" as it appears in Brian Baigrie's Scientific Revolutions: Primary Texts in the History of Science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004.

Sagan, Carl. "Can We Know The Universe?" originally published in Broca's Brain, 1979. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/sagan_science.html

Seed Media Group. Revolutionary Minds. Seed Magazine.com 2008. http://revminds.seedmagazine.com/

Shapin, Steven. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago press, 1996.

Watts, Ruth. "Gender, science and modernity in seventeenth-century England." Paedagogica Historica. 2005. 41, 1, 79-93. ISSN: 0030-9230.

Important Instructions

In order to receive course credit for your blog postings, be sure to follow these instructions:

1. Include YOUR FULL NAME IN THE LABELS for your post. This is how I will keep track of your postings. If your name does not appear, your post will not count.
2. Include ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FIVE BLOG DESCRIPTIONS IN THE LABELS for your required posts so that I know which ones you have completed: Reading Connections #1, Reading Connections #2, Abstract, Darwin Revelation, or What's New(s) in Science. If your blog is not descriptively so labeled, it will not count.
3. Each post MUST INCLUDE a link to outside content: an article, a blog post, video, music, etc. The content is up to you but if you do not include a link, your post will not count.
4. Each post MUST INCLUDE proper citations for any content that is not uniquely your own.If you refer directly to course readings, you should not only indicate author and page numbers, but also include a link to the course readings post so viewers can see the full citation.
5. Each required post MUST FULFILL ALL THE CRITERIA outlined for that post, as described in Required Postings.
   

Getting Started

I will send an email to your Champlain address "inviting" you to blogger as an author on our class blog. Once you sign up, you are ready to go.

If you need help posting, blogger can offer plenty of assistance. The general help page is found here. Information on how to post is located here. You can also find details on adding links or videos, and even directions on how to post a video from YouTube.

Welcome to the 2008 Class Blog for Core 210-05

Throughout this semester, our class studying Scientific Revolutions will create posts that elaborate upon course content and connect to other materials through links to outside sources such as articles and videos.

Your contribution will consist of a minimum of 5 posts, as outlined below, plus comments on other student postings as appropriate. (Of course, you are welcome and encouraged to blog more frequently if you wish!) Although it is a required course component, I hope you will approach this blog as an opportunity to show your unique perspective on the material we read and discuss, to be creative, and to personalize what we are doing in class in a way that interests and excites you.

REQUIRED POSTINGS:

1. Reading Connections #1: This posting must be made during course weeks 2-5. Create a blog post with links to articles, video, or other content of your choosing that extend concepts we are covering in class during these weeks. You must provide a clear explanation of how your link(s) connect to and expand upon class content, and you must specifically refer to and cite class texts when developing your explanations.
2. Reading Connections #2: This posting is just like the first, only it must be made during course weeks 6-8 and it must deal connect to course content covered during that same period.
3. Abstract: This posting must be done during course week 9. Together with your project partner, post your project abstract and provide a minimum of two links to follow for readers interested in learning more.
4. Darwin Revelation: This posting must be made during course weeks 13-15 (prior to final exam period). Identify a revelation you had after reading about and studying Darwin, and embed a YouTube video that represents the revelation. Your revelation must be clearly explained and supported through specific references to in-class readings, and the connection between your revelation and your chosen video must be thoroughly articulated. (You will also present and explain your revelation to the class during our Final Exam period.)
5. What’s New(s) in Science?: This posting must be completed within 1 week of your in-class What's New(s) Presentation. Create a blog posting that mirrors your in-class presentation, including links to outside content and explanations of their relevance.
   

Have fun, and remember, you are literally writing for the whole world to read!