Darwin Revelation

Throughout the course of this year in our Scientific Revolutions class I’ve come across some very interesting ideas. Some of these ideas I’ve already known and was simply made more aware of, while others were completely alien to me. However, one concept stuck out. Charles Darwin postulated that all of mankind is descendant of a lower, baser form. I’ve known this since it was taught to me at a young age in school, but what I’ve recently came across is the concept of evolution leaping from purely natural settings to evolution of society and civilization.

This notion was not directly stated by Darwin, but rather a man following down the same path, a man named Herbert Spencer. Within Appelman’s book this particular section on Spencer is interpreted by another man named Richard Hofstadter, but in either case his contributions are in giving a living voice and context to Spencer’s ideals.

What Spencer puts forth in his philosophy on mankind is that the human race will adapt entirely to civilization, but to do so we must allow for Darwin’s concept of “survival of the fittest” to take hold within society. What Spencer is saying is that we must allow for the unfortunate to die off. No aid or humanitarian efforts of any kind can be allowed for to help would be to bolster up traits and ideals which are flawed or lead to subpar qualities. To quote Hofstadter, “Nature is as insistent upon fitness of mental character as she is upon physical character, (pg. 392)” so stating that being physically or mentally unfit ends with death in the natural world. And to emphasize Hofstadter’s point, Spencer says, “If they are sufficiently complete to live, they do live, and it is well they should live. If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, as it is best they do die. (pg. 392)”

However, how could we ever do this? The general masses of people are far too kind hearted to allow someone to perish on their very doorstep for the sake of the overall effect of evolution. Even if you were to take away this humanitarian aspect of helping those in need, we would still be left with the very basic survival instinct of safety in numbers. In some instances we save others to save ourselves. Yet even if you take away this base instinct you would find that this theory still doesn’t work. Just consider a world where we allowed the weak to die with impunity. We would stand to lose many great people along the way. Poets and authors who were too poor to get by without help, painters who had no money but that they acquired through begging. If we snuffed out or ignored those in need we would find ourselves in a much less wondrous environment, devoid of things which we take for granted.

I realized through reading about Spencer’s plan that our need to be humane trumps our evolutionary needs. Our society is far better off with those who need help than without them. While I reject Spencer’s notions in society I accept his consideration of evolution within it. Darwin’s belief was that evolution was a multi-pronged assault against extinction, that the myriad of species which inhabit this earth are a result of this assault. Both Spencer and Darwin rely on this notion of steps, that we start from a single point and grow out from it, changing along the way to better suit the needs for that time. However, Spencer’s notion fails to take into account that the civilized world cannot follow the same rules as a flesh and blood animal. Social aspects can be found in other species, but empires and civilizations cannot be, Spencer’s theory is placing biological concepts on abstract principles.

Works Cited

Hofstadter, Richard. Social Darwinism in American Though. Ch. 2. Boston, 1955

Darwin (appleman)



This video describes some of the basic feelings towards the notion of social darwinsim, though it is put into the scheme of the failing market.

Invisibility (sort of)

The concept of invisibility has long been thought to be entirely for movies of monsters and magic, but recent developments in science may bring this into the realm of possibility. The researchers at UC (university of California) Berkeley have created materials which have the ability to bend light in unnatural directions. These materials are called metamaterials, which are man made materials which derive their unusual properties from their structure as opposed to composition. This is to say that the literal form of the materials is what gives them their unusual characteristics.
What these materials do specifically is achieve negative refraction. Negative refraction is the term used to describe what happens when light is bent. No material in nature has negative refraction, and a simple example of what it would do if it were in nature involves fish. When you look at a fish underwater you know instinctively that it is not precisely where it appears to be, that it is skewed by the refractive quality of light when entering or exiting water. If negative refraction were taking place you would see the fish upside down and floating above the water.
So while the researches at UC Berkeley have figured out a way to bend light they have yet to make it widely applicable, such that the materials they have at the moment are simply too small and too fragile to be used in any sort of invisibility cloak. What they have been able to do with these materials, however, is put them to use in making stronger lenses for magnification purposes, cutting out interference in antennas, and reversing the Doppler effect.

For the actual source of this information go to this website

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!

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

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.