Science and Arts : Similarities and Differences

Link: http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/ellkpmoh/science/sci-arts.htm

Pauls' Wheels of Reasoning:

Question of issue: The difference as well as the similarities between various disciplines of both science and arts

Purpose: To show himself that his point of view that they are similar is wrong and that there are various differences between them

Evidence: 1) "The stereotype of "science" as a totally certain, infallible body of knowledge arrived at through totally objective observation and deductive reasoning is not true of physics. Conversely, the stereotype of "arts" does not apply to history either."

2) "The similarities and differences between sciences and arts involve a number of parameters. If we consider all these parameters, what we get is a multidimensional spectrum, not a binary classification."

Assumptions: The writer is assuming that though science and arts have their obvious differences, he is consoling himself by saying that there are also similarities between the two.

POV: That science and arts are similar and to debunk this assumption

Concepts: The breaking down of science and arts into smaller aspects, like sub disciplines of science and arts and the finding of similarities between these sub disciplines, like the criteria for critical evaluation and the methodologies.

Implications:The article suggests that the difference between arts and science is very thin ad very vague.

Inferences: that the author believes that both science and arts have similarities and differences

Similarities between social and physical sciences

Link: http://www.helium.com/items/1289290-social-sciences-science-comparison

Pauls' wheel of reasoning:

Question of issue: Similarities between two differing aspects of science -- social and physical science

Purpose: To exemplify how different disciplines of sciences such as arts and geography can in fact be similar

Evidence: 1) "Now the question is, "Are the social sciences really science?" Before we can answer this question, we must determine our criterion. That is, what constitutes a "real" science"

2) "Common responses would suggest that any science must include adjectives such as "empirical," "theoretical," "predicting," "methodic," and "objective" among others."

3) "Are the social sciences really science? Yes, and then some. Social scientists have taken science and developed it and expanded it in a way that uses basic principles of science to help us learn about human behavior"

Assumptions: Believes that all humans want to understand each other, through understanding others' behaviours and knowing each other.

POV: That social science should also be considered to be a real science, and that due to the defintion of science being one that has empirical evidence that social science is not considered to be science, he feels that it is a absolutely ridiculous.

Concepts: about the various other discipline of science, taking social and physical science into consideration.

Implications: if we do not take social science seriously, it would be difficult for us to understand social science

Inferences: The tone is one of utmost dignity and does not feel that social science should be taken lightly.

Summary:

Science itself has many different levels to it, having disciplines of science brings about sub disciplines of it. However there are two overarching aspects, which is social and physical sciences, the invisible and the empirical respectively. It is hard to accept social sciences because they do not have any empirical evidence, and instead based on examples and case studies of various countries. Other than these two aspects, the author also questions the purpose of science as a whole, which is whether science is used to provide information to the people for the betterment of lives or is the purpose of science used to discount all information that does not fit into the criteria of science which is to be empirical and have evidence for the claim made. The author also states that social science is qualitative while physical science is quantitative research. The author also points out difference between social and physical, one asking questions and the other doing experiments.

Transhumanism: The most dangerous idea?

Link: http://reason.com/archives/2004/08/25/transhumanism-the-most-dangero

Pauls' Wheel of Reasoning:

Question at issue: Transhumanism, defined as a strange liberation movement"that wants "nothing less than to liberate the human race from its biological constraints, posing the greatest threat to humans

Purpose: To highlight the changes between people in the primitive age and the current and show how one has changed through training or studies to become one that is no longer considered as a human.

Evidence: 1) "Of course, humans have been deliberately changing their bodies through athletic training and their brains through schooling."

2) "Our ancestors had no wings; now we fly. Our ancient forebears could not hear one another over 1,000 miles; now we phone. And our Stone Age progenitors averaged 25 years of life; now we live 75."

3) "If we start transforming ourselves into something superior, what rights will these enhanced creatures claim, and what rights will they possess when compared to those left behind?"

Assumptions: That all people, regardless of whether students or adults have gone through education before, or go for athletic training for the enhancement of muscles... (Though the UN has come up with the Millennium Development Goals which has one aim for universal primary education)

POV: The point of view is one that criticises science and how it has affected our lives.

Concepts: Transhumanism, Changes in our bodies due to scientific advancements

Consequences: Us changing too much such that we are not considered as humans, Effects of transhumanism

Inferences: One that is of a serious tone and that transhumanism is too far fetched and no relevant

Summary:

A term prevalent yet controversial? Transhumanism is the answer. Transhumanism, like science and technology as a general topic, can be used for it benefits or its cons. However, with that said, the concept of transhumanism is not void, it is present and prevailing. Transhumanism can be controlled and manipulated to either help oneself be more advanced or help others. It’s a subject of one or the society, whether one is selfish or not. Transhumanism has been prevalent since the early ages, through communication devices, lifestyle changes, and lifestyle choices and being bound to the earth, instead of “flying”. The more idealistic view of looking at transhumanism would be that it would aid the world, aid in eradicating poverty, aid in eradicating disability, aid in removing sadness, akin to the rabbits being captured and put back into the magician’s hat. Instead of us warring with one another due to transhumanism, let us look at the brighter and better side of it.

Singularity: Kurzweil on 2045, When Humans, Machines Merge" by Lev Grossman

4th post :)

This article cannot be found or is expired.

Thank you

Immoral Advances : Is science out of control?

Pauls' Wheel of Reasoning:

Question of Issue: The advances of Science and Technology and how it goes against moral and ethical judgements

Purpose: To show and exemplify the fact that science causing lots of advances in technology, causing immorality and unethical purposes in creating such technological stuff.

Evidence: 1) "many controversies over scientific advances are based on ethical concerns. In the past, the main areas of contention have included nuclear weapons, eugenics and experiments on animals, but in recent years the list of “immoral” research areas has grown exponentially"

2) "He has coined the more disparaging term “yuk response” to describe this reaction, and believes that we should challenge the idea that repugnance is a reliable moral guide and the ultimate arbiter."

Assumptions: That all aspects of science is immoral and that technology is generally harmful based on his point of view which is that science causes immoral judgements

Point of View:That science is immoral despite all the benefit that science can bring about

Concepts: Relationship between science and ethics / morals and how science is inversely proportionate to ethical judgement

Implications: Moral issues is inversely proportionate to science and technology

Inferences: Author regards morality to the backbone of science and technology

Summary:

Science and technology undoubtedly has improved our lives, but there are many controversies over science and technology. Most of the controversies surround unethical and immoral thinking as well as purposes for their own works. However, in the present world, there are still many scientists that consider science to be morally neutral. They feel that they should not pass any judgement on others’ works as science and technology is not subjective and affects everyone. Therefore they feel that scientific illiteracy means that the scientist has a moral judgment towards the topic that he or she is working on. However, if scientists want to tackle these immoral and unethical judgements on people’s works, the scientists need to understand more, and condemn less. Scientific knowledge should be based on knowledge alone and not by passing moral or emotional biasness on others' works. The concept that repugnance is a reliable moral guide should be challenged to make justifications for people’s initial intuitions of right.

Science for Humanity!!!! :D:D

Summary:

Science and Technology in this aspect solves stuff. Problems are found and problems are solved. The importance of science is epitomised in this case where science benefits humanity. Hexayurt, a good example, solves the lack of affordable yet comfortable housing for citizens of poorer countries. It has materials that are cheap which cost $100 altogether, and is considered as sustainable living. Another example is Green Charcoal, where wood biomass energy is found as an alternative energy for sustainable living in the future. Science and technology has allowed us to find many new things and continuous research to find new alternative things ranging from housing to alternative energies. This shows that science can bring about linkages between both reality and the scientific world, being the source of problems as well as the source of solutions respectively. It is able to solve most urgent problems and also provide sustainable differences to the current solutions to the problems. Science can bring us benefits…

Thank you!!!!!

1st: Science and Ethics by Alan E. Donant

Article: http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/sc-aed.htm

Paul’s Wheel of Reasoning:

Question at Issue: Which is more important than the other, Science or Ethics?

Purpose: To show the overemphasis on Science as well as the advancements, which lead to the lack of emphasis on Ethics. To show how both Science and Ethics are different in nature and the equilibrium is easily affected

Evidence / Data: 1) Invisible phenomena are an accepted arena of science, and the unseen 90% of the matter in the cosmos and the 90% of an iceberg below the surface suggest that the invisible is at least equal in importance to the visible

2) The Star Wars series presents two metaphors for future human potential: Luke Skywalker and his father, Darth Vader. The son emphasizes the mystical path where the forces of nature are used with a sense of service to others; the father emphasizes the path of applied technology accompanied by selfish gratification for power.

Assumptions: The fact that there is Oneness in everything we do

POV: One that believes that science is everything and uses moral jargon

Concepts: Consciousness, Oneness of science, Togetherness of science and ethics, How science and ethics affect each other differently

Implications: Science will be affected negatively by the uprising of ethical and moral judgement

Inferences: What the writer is trying to tell us is that science and technology is currently advancing quickly and that it would be harmful to humans in the long run. However at the current moment, it is rather beneficial for us humans if we do not look at it from a moral / ethical point of view. We also need to consolidate the science and technology as well as psychology and spirituality, in order to see them as one united force and then able to use that force to help the world, be it in the long term or the short term.

Summary:

Great civilizations are measured by their material progress, altruism and compassion. Science and Technology brings us benefits and harms. A sense of ethics from science as a discipline is created. There are many things we do not see. As consciousness and the understanding of phenomena are explored, consciousness and matter will be seen together.

Cause and effect is important. We must see that science and moral is one united force. Moral is essential compared to science. The human mind approaches meaning in many ways. In their lower expressions these three -- science, philosophy, and spirituality -- can all be divisive and dogmatic; in their purity of expression all three can lead toward truth and have the capacity to uncover and encourage a universal ethic. A synergy combined benefiting humanity may far exceed any one discipline alone. Science can see its role as an agent for the material betterment of society or for the far-reaching betterment of humanity and all nature.