The Turkle Video and the Article by Diamond - Assignment Example

Journal Journal Monday, January 19th Read Hughes article and comment in your journal on whether you agree or disagree with his understanding of what science CANNOT do and explain why. Hughes’ argument that there are other methods of capturing truth beyond science is feasible even though I do not agree with it. Hughes does not give an example of the research problem that the fields of ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology have solved. I am aware that answers to questions such as the justification torture for information are subject to bias or not globally agreed on (Hughes, 2012). However, this distinction does not mean that truth is the same in the eyes of all scientists. I think Hughes should only categorize these questions as fact and belief separately. I also disagree that scientific work comes off as a loud declaration that are other methods of finding the truth. Hughes’ article does not cite any research problems, theories, or statements that these alternative methods have solved. From this point of view, it becomes ironic to see Hughes’ argument critically its method of determining whether scientism is a viable method of discovering the truth about any phenomena. I do think that critiquing methods of research such as behavioral environment is healthy for the entire field and all associated sciences. However, arguing intensely against the findings these methods yielded without providing alternatives simply enables nonscientific methods of research. I further disagree that scientism is hypocritical of its methods of research and discovery. History and academia are full of revolutions and paradigms shifts attributed to science. Surely Hughes is sending out an alert about recent trends in scientific methods of research that have yielded unhelpful findings (Hughes). Even if a number of researchers make overstated claims in their respective fields, scientism will progress as usual solving one problem after the other. Even when science does not solve a question or phenomena, it admits to its complexity and offers possible theories or research methods. Monday, February 2nd Do you agree or disagree with Martin’s critique of our current understanding of the concept of expertise? Explain why. Martin’s critique is brief but holistic enough to persuade me to agree with his key points. I think the source of motivation in Martin’s critique is the tension brought about by specialization in nearly all professions. I know there are many issues concerning expertise that many readers of Martin’s critique would concur that professionals today are so lost in their lines of work that they are not in touch with good judgment anymore. A good example is a professional economist whose commitment to his or her field often intertwines with his or her perception of the world. I agree that this commitment can result in simple arrogance that causes experts to become unwilling to recognize new ideas or apply the most recent scientific discoveries (Martin, 2008-09). I agree with Martin’s support of the conventional professional who had a vital role in forming and sustaining numerous aspects of life that society often take for granted. From Martin’s advocacy, I learned that professionals make up a set of very knowledgeable people who wield a lot of influence in politics and education. Despite this influence, I find it noble that Martin acknowledges that experienced professionals in fields such as political science accomplish far less than novice political scientists do. Even though experienced experts are proficient in their spheres, predicting future developments in their fields is often a challenge (Martin). Even though Martin does not state it, I think this difficulty arises from experts betting on their statuses in their specialties. As a result, Martin’s critique is not applicable all experts although he is correct to support overall education on numerous topics. Monday, February 16th Read the article by Diamond. In your journal, discuss whether and why you agree or disagree with Jared Diamond’s assertion about agriculture. I do not agree with Diamond’s assertion about agriculture that human beings were better off before the Neolithic Revolution. I am aware of the disadvantages human beings endured, and still do, after switching to agriculture from hunting and gathering. Innovations brought about at this shift outweigh the setbacks. Diamond’s assertion solely concentrates on the setbacks brought about by this paradigms shift while failing to discuss its positive effects (Diamond, 1987). I think human beings have found ways to manage or solve the setbacks and negative effects of this shift. Comparing the scale of harm or retrogression caused by the disadvantages of switching to agriculture with ensuing innovations reveals the true potential of human beings as a whole. Rises in population, more physical labor, less leisure, and social inequality are manageable today because of solutions what about by innovations that can be attributed to shifting to farming. Contrary to Diamond’s assertion about agriculture, I think the Neolithic Revolution was a grand paradigm shift in humankind’s history. Diamond advocates this notion that human beings are still animals though indirectly, which I agree with to a significant extent. However, just like the adaptation concept of evolution, doing away with fewer progressive ways of living is necessary. Among these fewer progressive ways of living, is hunting and gathering. Forming a modern community, together with psychological and social constructs that determine customs is helpful. Shifting from hunting and gathering pulled human beings from dynamically involving themselves in relatively primal behavior and entering intelligent and more inquisitive patterns of reasoning and living (Diamond). If Diamond’s notion about agriculture succeeded before the Neolithic Revolution, human beings would have most likely failed to transcend the concept of awareness and comprehend the nature of their natural surroundings. Monday, March 9th Watch the Turkle video. In your journal, please make an entry which discusses whether social networking websites such as Facebook represent real community. Has the advance in communication technologies enhanced human relationships? I think social networking sites such as Facebook do not represent real community. This reflection is in line with Turkle’s advocacy about the state of human cognitive and social connections today. Social networks disconnect today’s youths with reality and more conventional ways of socialization (Turkle, 2012). Viewers of Turkle’s video should take heed of her warning that the constant interaction through new media is replacing real dialog or face-to-face communication. Rather than representing real are community, I think social networks hinder face-to-face dialog. I have found myself absorbed by social media accounts such as Twitter, which prevented me from expressing a proper response while conversing with another person. As a result, I can relate to Turkle’s argument that technology obstructs and lowers real-world communication amongst its users. The advance in communication has not enhanced human relationships. If anything, this advancement is causing a moral panic today because it takes on a causal relationship with poor social skills. I think it is reasonable when parents panic over the image of the children ignoring them or their siblings while gathered together. The same level of panic is extended to parents who ignore the children when gathered together by focusing intensely on their smartphones or computers. Turkle’s depiction of the smartphone as a cause of the collapse of conventional family values is moderately accurate. A child who wants to stretch out and interact with peers can use new media such as Facebook or Instagram. However, extending this means of communication to older people such as parents or teachers is nearly impossible today. Previous generations consider the chat-based communiqués a shallow means of communication (Turkle). I think Turkle’s casts the image of deteriorating human relationships as an unforeseen villain, it makes an immediate condemnation demanding. Monday, March 23rd Read the debate between Kurzweil and Bill Joy. In your journal, please elaborate on whether you agree with Kurzweil’s assertion that we cannot refrain from technological development (and why!!). I agree with Kurzweil’s assertion that human beings cannot refrain from technological advancement. I believe in sustaining a public system prepared for more and more scientific and innovative progress even though Kurzweil’s assertion is understated. I think this progress would involve a step-by-step process conditional on market or public and authority acceptance. In the process, this progress would facilitate innovation and represent common human values (Kurzweil, 2001). Kurzweil points to efforts regulate these innovations through extremely restrictive legislation or clandestine government programs, even with unavoidable concealed progresses. I think this statement is Kurzweil’s way of remaining subtle while arguing against a nearly fixed pattern of human progress. However, I think the argument alerts of the avoidance of an unhinged atmosphere in which the unsafe applications of these innovations would possibly become prevalent. Future risks caused by the most advanced innovations might seem alarming when thought of in the context of the modern unprepared world. However, I enjoy and agree with Kurzweil’s counterargument that the complexity and influence of today’s protective innovations and expertise would expand together with the risks. I think the day we master nanobot replication, we will already have or will immediately begin to work on nanobots that control or counter this replication process. I agree that stopping the pursuit of knowledge in sales of technological innovation would be harmful to human beings’ overall technological advancement. Nobody is sure that human beings will master and apply technological innovations in the future successfully or will misuse and exterminate themselves (Kurzweil). This room of uncertainty is enough to cultivate accountable practitioners in all fields and further the pursuit of technological progress. References Diamond, J. (1987). The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race. Discover Magazine, 64-67. Retrieved from http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html Hughes, A. L. (2012). The Folly of Scientism. The New Atlantis, 37, pp. 32-50. Retrieved from http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism Martin, B. (2008-09). Expertise and Equality. Social Anarchism, 42, pp. 10-20. Retrieved from http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/08sa.html Kurzweil, R. (2001). Promise and Peril. Interactive Week, pp. 4. Ziff Davis Media Inc. Turkle, S. (2012). Connected, but alone. TED. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together Read More