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.

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.

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 }

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!

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.

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.

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 16^th and 17^th 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 England, women were not well educated and they were excluded from formal educational institutions such as the grammar school and the university. There are few factors that play a role in here. For instance, at that time witchcraft was a big deal and church was just breathing on your back. It’s clearly that if a women were to have some sort of a break through or discovery in science she would be automatically accused of witchcraft. “Women had their scientific impulses restrained by gendered notions.” (Watts) Men had a lot of control and church was able to stimulate that control for years. As the bad times slowly went by, women naturally started to have a place in science through their culinary and medical roles. A woman like Bathsua Makin and Anna Maria van Schurmann were able to provide an education for girls and ability to learn and use a range of sciences and mathematics in an extended female role. It was a big step and giant leap for women and science.

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.

Thank you for reading,

-Andrei

Reference:

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=G1NdnG4NyyM

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>.

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

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.

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

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!