Response:
I thought this article was very interesting. There were a lot of concepts that were brought up that I found intriguing. The first was the idea of science being an intellectual enjoyment. The author brings up the point that some people get this enjoyment from learning and thinking, while some get it from physically working on something. Scientists get it from working and analyzing. They arrange things so that people can enjoy them. Another concept that interested me was the idea of science being a completely unsure thing. As well all know, nothing in science is for certain, and this is un-nerving for some people. A lot of people find the idea of something being not completely sure is relatively scary, and is not to be believed. Scientists are used to this kind of uncertainty, while others find the concept of living without knowing impossible and uncomfortable. The final idea that the author presents is the idea that both good and evil can be taught, but not through science. Education can teach good and bad, but regardless of the nature of the science, whether it be applied or otherwise, cannot teach good or bad. Science simply researches things that may be good or bad. The article is summed up by the underlying theme of not knowing, and accepting that not knowing is good. Doubt should be welcomed, and not feared by people.
Definitions:
Values: a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.
Ignorance: lack of knowledge or information.
Responsibility: the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone.
Questions:
1. Is science morally neutral? Why, or why not?
2. Can you teach good or bad?
3. Is doubt welcomed or feared in society? Do you personally welcome it, or fear it?
No comments:
Post a Comment