Key Issues on the Journal Reflections - Essay Example

Journal Reflection al Affiliation) Journal Reflection Monday, January 12th I concur with Atkins on the assertion that Science is a thoughtful process of experimentation governed by theory. In his video, “Science As truth” he explains how science is a continuous phenomenon with no limits. I believe that events such as evolution, origin of the earth, and reproduction can only be best explained by Science; hence, it being the truth. According to Atkins, Science is consistent. I concur with such an assertion on grounds that scientific research is harmonized by the results obtained. There have been claims of irrational prejudice in Science but I believe that no scientist can twist a natural phenomenon to suit his or her interests. I agree with Atkins that Science is not discriminatory. Science has no boundaries in terms of culture, religion, continent, or race. As Atkins argues, I believe that Science is trans-national, trans-racial, and trans-cultural. The interests between individuals in lines of race, culture, or religion do not influence science; hence, I can convincingly argue that it is consistent. In addition, Science is open to modifications. This creates room for young scientists to become famous. However, fame does not promote customized research. I believe that in the thirst to become famous, young scientists conduct rational experiments to test a phenomenon and come up with an objective study; hence, the modification of science. Monday, January 26th In the exchange, I believe that Pinker is justified to argue that for a scientific mindset, it is prudent to have an empirical verification for each empirical proposition. On the other hand, Wieseltier roots for a two-state solution. According to my understanding, I believe that Wieseltier has the best argument. In the contemporary world, I think it would be prudent to assert that science and humanities are complements rather than substitutes. As such, I believe that both a scientific and humanistic mindset is required; hence, promoting the two-state solution. I believe that Wieseltier does not discriminate sciences as much as pinker discriminates humanities. In an attempt to promote the two-state solution, I believe that Wieseltier is against the belief of scientism. It is also prudent to agree with him that scientific analysis may not be applicable in the entire physical world. In this case, I think the exchange lies on the fact that how much can science explain. Pinker attempts to promote science as the sole verification for empirical propositions. I believe that Wieseltier is not for humanity as the sole verification but counters the thought that science is the best possible verification. As such, he attempt to question Pinker on how much science can explain rather than on its goodness. I hold my belief that a two-state solution between science and humanities is what is required in the contemporary world of new technologies and increasing demands in both the scientific and humanistic fields. Monday, February 9th I believe that Diamond’s article, “The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race” acts as a revelation and convincingly argues the fact that agriculture can comfortably be termed as the worst mistake in the history of the human race; hence, the concurrence. Humanity may focus on the global economic situation and international oil prices while forgetting that some of the global issues stem from the most basic of things such as agriculture. After reading the article, I can convincingly argue that agriculture compromised quality for quantity (Diamond, 1987). The reasons for such an argument are supported by the fact there is an overwhelming increase in fast food restaurants. Modern agriculture centers on carbohydrates and starch to cater for the demands of the fast food industry. It is a common phenomenon to see men in the village, in rural areas, chatting from dawn to dusk as women toil on the farms. This is contrary to what was experienced in the past whereby both men and women shared a responsibility to bring food on the table. I strongly agree with Jared’s argument that women have been reduced to beasts of burden, as they spend the entire day toiling in fields as their male counterparts enjoy the “fruits of farming” (Diamond, 1987). This is a clear indication of stereotyping responsible for the rampant gender inequality. Although Jared pinpoints agriculture as the sole reason for what can be termed as moral decay in the modern society, he ought to talk about other mistakes that compromise the contemporary society, not sidelining agriculture. As such, I can offer a counter argument that agriculture has been beneficial over the years by providing a means of sustenance to most families. Monday, March 9th I believe that technological advancement has led to the creation of an online community that can be referred to as a “real” community. Though being a virtual community, I believe that social networking websites are responsible for the shift from human to human interaction to human to technological interaction. Being a member of several social networks, I obtain the feeling that social networking sites establish a platform similar to that of a real community. Turkle explains how people may be in the same location yet in different worlds. I believe that her assertion about interaction without physical presence creates a virtual community. I hold a strong belief that the advance in communication technologies has destroyed human relationships. The virtual community does not improve human interaction. I second Turkle’s argument that through communication technologies, I can be connected but alone. In that case, I concur with the fact that communication technologies enhance the “Goldilocks effect” whereby individuals can influence their location to control attention. I believe that communication technologies shift interaction through conversation to interaction through connection; hence, ruining human relationships. Monday, March 23rd I second Kurzweil’s assertion that humanity cannot refrain from technological development. It is prudent that I state that almost all economic, social, and political activities depend on technology. For example, international trade majorly relies on technology. As such, I believe that technology unveils potentials that would rather remain unutilized or undiscovered. Although Kurzweil argues that humanity is at risk due to misuse of new technologies, I think the exposure to new technologies is overwhelming. As such, individuals attain new devices and because of lack of knowledge, they end up underutilizing the technologies; hence, the misuse. I believe that proper education would ensure that the full potential of technologies is realized. As such, people would not misuse technologies in fields such as medicine and agriculture. I hold a strong conviction that humanity cannot revert to the analogue means of communication, transportation, farming, and accessing information. As such, I believe that we cannot refrain from technological development. We ought to know how to utilize the technologies to enhance the quality of living rather than misusing the technologies in an attempt to become digital. The dependence of the economic, political, and social spheres to technology is more of the reason as to why I believe that humanity cannot refrain from technological development. Read More