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.