Thursday, May 29, 2014

Critical Thinking Blog #8

            Throughout the course I have seen readings and theories of both humanities and science standpoint that ranged on a really wide spectrum, as some of the ideas brought up are all valid. It just makes me wonder which is the right way to live by? Do I live my life through scientific studies? Which can be proven. Or by humanitarian values which are always questioned as to what is right or wrong and is something more innate and felt inside the soul. I personally think I’ve broadened my views of the humanities and I’m more open to acknowledge that maybe there is something good about humans and the choices we make. For the most part though, I still abide by the scientific ideas and theories because that resonates more personally to me and seems more logical and much easier to understand. Also it’s more interesting to learn about.
            The world to me seems to blend more of the humanities as I felt empathy for people who put their lives at risk to create or discover new wonders of science. For example, Rosalind Franklin was a perfect example of how society is unfair and strips people of their recognitions based on discriminatory biases. She was the scientist who through hard work and long dedicated hours discovered the true structure of how DNA looked, but due to the fact that she was a woman who attended a school who frowned upon women scientists got, for lack of better words, screwed over and had her pictures secretly taken from her and she wasn’t given the recognition and Noble Prize that I feel she deserved.

            I think that the perils of science might have risks, but the reality that I envision is that more advanced and even genetically infused technology might be able to bring new hope for humanity. Hopefully diseases won’t be an issue if you can clone human beings. That means humans won’t have to worry about life being lost and maybe memories can be preserved and transferred. There are also the issues of the human souls and whether that is abusing this precious notion of the soul by replicated and getting rid of souls as fast as they’re made. 

Critical Thinking Blog #7


            Albert Einstein was a very famous and respected scientist as he was the one discovered the theory of relativity and even coined the formula e=mc^2 which was a wonder at the time it was discovered, but later it became the foundation for the atomic bombs and weapons of mass destruction. Einstein won Noble awards for his theories and ideas that lead human society advance and understand the world better, but even he did not approve of what his discoveries lead to. The devastation seen in the bombing of Japan’s Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a catastrophe as this all came about due to this simple yet amazing formula so Einstein felt guilty and later on started to use nuclear fission as a way to help the environment, not destroy it.
            His way of thinking allowed humanity to look forward to something positive or something interesting to come ahead and all we had to do is just study and learn about what physics really does for the world. In Alan Lightman’s novel, he allows non scientific people to understand how Einstein viewed the world and how he came about his theories and gave us this sense of awe to the excitement of mysterious that are hidden right before our eyes. As you can see Einstein was such a powerful figure that even writers tried to retell the story of how his theories came to be, but in the most simplified way that even a normal person could understand and be fascinated by these marvels.



Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Critical Thinking Blog - Assignment #4 (Prompt 2)

   Humans have been posed with the question that has boggled recent researchers as much as it has back in earlier centuries. Are humans altruistic or are they selfish, think and protect themselves? Darwin advocated that humans are not more cooperative and altruistic, but rather a selfish species. I believe that humans are a self-centered selfish species and agree with Darwin's theory because humans like the idea that they are good souls and are the helping type, but the reality is that we always make decisions after we've decided if it's too risky or it doesn't benefit us at all. Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" and Ian McEwan's "Us or Me" will support this thesis more in depth.
   First of all, in McEwan's short story about a group of strangers who encounter an unexpected event in which a hot air ballon was came crashing down and had a young boy and an elderly man. They had a choice to help out or just  let the situation unfold naturally. They chose to save the boy. McEwan's main protagonist states, "What were we running toward? I don't think any of us would ever know fully. But superficially the answer was a ballon" (McEwan 267). This quote shows the characters were going out of instinct. Which is normal because at first insticnt people will be willing to help other people if they haven't completely analyzed the situation they're in. While running toward the balloon Jon Rose starts to analyze the situation and says, "We were running toward a catastrophe, which itself was a kind of furnace in whose heat identifies and fates would buckle into new shapes" (McEwan 267). You can start to feel the doubt in his tone of speaking. It starts to prove that even while going over to help someone in need of help a person will always think about the risk involved and what it might to do him.
   After the balloon was contained the first time. An unexpected detail came up and a huge gust takes the balloon up in the air and six men are holding on to this balloon by a rope in mid air. One of them is the boy's grandfather. Once again, Jon Rose's thoughts show how humans will never be an altruistic species as he describes the running thoughts in his head, "Almost simultaneously with the desire to save the boy, barely a neuronal pulse later, came other thoughts, in which fear and instinct calculations of logarithmic complexity were fused" (McEwan 271). As soon as all these thoughts came to his mind the rest of the people start to drop including the grandfather. This shows that in the long run, humans will weigh out the risks and attempt to be altrustic only if the risks are too great, they might protect themselves rather than somebody else. Even blood or family ties cannot always make a person truly altruistic. Out of all the six men who tried to save the boy only one held on the longest, but eventually lost grip and plummented to his death. One out of six is a very low percentage to consider humans altruistic and generally good.
   In Richard Dawkins book, he argues that humans are a self-centered race. We have this inner "gene" that doesn't allow us to be willing to help other people. In the case of kin saving each other, Dawkins states, "minimum requirement for a suicidal altruistic gene to be successful is that it should save more than two siblings, (children or parents), or more than four half-siblings, (or uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, grandparents, grandchildren), or more than eight first cousins, etc. Such a gene, on average tends to live on in this bodies of enough individuals saved by the altruist to compensate to the death of the altruist itself" (Dawkins 184). This quote basically means that in order for this altruistic gene to exist this situation must happen normally or statistically more than half of the time. Since this happens seldomly, the idea that humans are altruistic starts to fade away and seem farfetched.
   Dawkins questions if altruism exists solely by itself or if it's brought about by our selfish gene. He states, "Basically it does this by helping to program the bodies in which it finds itself to survive and reproduce. But now we are emphasizing that "it" is a distributed agency, existing in many different individuals at once" (Dawkins 179). He feels that humans won't go out of their way to help others without thinking about themselves first. He uses the best type of experiment to support his theory, twins. Twins have shared DNA and if identical and one gives his life to save the other than that altruistic gene must exist in both of them.
   In conclusion, the thought that humans are good and will sacrifice themselves to save someone else is false. Humans might save others as long as it doesn't sound or seem too risky to their own lives. Unless it involves a family member then the numbers will be higher, but only out of a selfish thought to protect and save one's own blood.

Sunday, April 13, 2014

Critical Thinking Blog #2: Does ‘Popular Science’ Today Awe Us, Inspire Us or Threaten Us?

   In the series episode Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, the show which has a high number of viewers due to its inviting idea to think of the world scientifically and explore what life can really be in this universe. Just by listening to the first minute or so of the introduction of the episode I could tell that the tone is very optimistic of the future and how technology and science will allow us to grow and have great things to look forward too. If you hear the narrator's voice you can see how he makes our small galaxy sound so great and not too mention he makes how existence sound very insignificant and small. There is an amazing vast world out there and that we should get started on trying to explore it to its fullest.

   Rothstein's quote gives you the impression that humans value more scientific theories rather than take up a humanitarian view only because we try to accept and help out of fellow people, but we fear and are awed by the notions of what science really is. Even though a lot of people might not believe in the theory of evolution we still have this curiosity to know what really is out there beyond our Milky Way galaxy. The Cosmos series seems to give us hope and curiosity to know what really are the possibilities and realities of life outside our mere small world. I think Cosmos does an excellent job portraying and conveying the message that science is enormous and that there are many things that science has yet to discover giving us this feeling of wanting to find out what it really has in store for us.

Critical Thinking Blog #3: Research Paper Brainstorming

   One of the topics that I'd like to research about is cloning and whether artificial intelligence will take over and be a prominent use in modern day society. I also want to pose the pros and cons of what this type of society would have if this actually comes to be. The reason this interests me so much is because the idea of having fully human replicated robots that look very realistic sounds like a great idea, but then wouldn't that make the human race more lazy. What would people do in their spare time now that these AI's have taken over and will be doing every mundane task that we usually did. Will we just learn to be pleased and served as kings and queens like back in the old ages. Also what if these replicated "humans" turn out to have a mind of their own and instead of listening to instructions and commands that they're supposed to follow they decide to revolt and have an uprising like in the movie I Robot starring Will Smith or another great example the Terminator Trilogy. It's a scary thought knowing that if we create something so amazing do we treat them as just things or like any other normal human beings that have emotions and feelings. Also the cloning idea can also have these consequences. What if abuse the science and decide to mass produce large quantities of these people. Would it be immoral to use them to our own will. Can this really benefit the societal world or would it have dire consequences that we might not be acknowledging at the moment. More research will allow me to decide, but I will level with people who advocate the usage of AI's. Life would be much more easier and more leisure time will be at hand to do other stuff that we didn't have time before, but the risk variables are too high right now to be able to do something like this worldwide.

   The other topic that I would like to cover is whether humans are naturally good or bad. Meaning whether we have a selfish part of us that with only allow us to strive for ourselves at the expensive of other if possible or if we a cooperating species that has high views on altruism. The reason I want to research this is because it's the core of all philosophy. How does one decide what's right and wrong and what is the true nature of humans. It's kind of an interesting and sensitive concept to argue even since it was brought up during Aristotle's time in ancient Greece. I feel that maybe humans are more realistic and have an inner instinct to fend for themselves even if it means using their own family and blood to get what they want, but the idea that we'd like to see ourselves as clean nice people who will help another in need is a nice thought. It's more of a goal to do something like that because my own opinion is that we have more tendencies towards being bad then being good because the benefit that comes to us is more pleasurable and instantly gratifies our wishes as opposed to helping another person who probably won't return the favor like you did. It's a game, a gambling game, that I feel can turn out any way and it's very unpredictable.

Critical Thinking Blog #1: Are You A Science or Humanities Person (Or Both)?

    Hi my name is Alexander Congiu. I'm a Psychology major at LaGuardia Community College and this will be my last semester as I hope to graduate with an Associates Degree and then attend Hunter College for my BA in psych. After that I plan to go to graduate school and even get my PhD in Clinical Psychology. In the meantime I need to accomplish one goal at a time. I also used to study Mechanical Engineering at City College. I did that for about 4 years only to decide that it wasn't meant for me or I'll be honest with myself and engineering is not what I expected it to be, but I still enjoyed the thought of being able to understand how world functions scientific theories.

   The question posed to me is a complicated one because I have a background in both humanitarian and scientific theories. I study psychology and have to learn to empathize with people, learn to listen, accept their problems and give them a solution that with benefit them. I also have very strong morals towards doing what's right and have a very guilty conscience if I know what I'm saying is against my principles, but I do value the idea of saying and doing things to benefit others lives. I also have a strong science background due to my engineering studies and know what life is to depend or accept science as the foundation to living. I love doing research and I love to discuss themes and topics based on concrete facts because it's easier to prove, but then again there's always that doubt that science can't explain the idea of a soul and that's something that can't be represented with science, but through human psychology. A person has to learn how to understand feelings and emotions and that's a very difficult thing to accomplish even with all the learnt knowledge one receives in higher education. So I struggle with deciding whether I'm a humanities or science person, but I can say that maybe I'm both. It just depends on the situation posed at the moment and what circumstance one would be better to use.