..
What do you think the role of scientific controversy is?
The question is not whether there is a role for controversy in science, but can it be constructively presented in the academic community. That is, without obstruction from the US Constitution or the Supreme Court as in the case of intelligent design.
Darwin's theories, perhaps more than any other in the past two centuries, have evoked strong camps in the US-- where is the line between debate of new ideas and ethical/moral repercussions and the type of entrenchment that Darwinian theory has seen?
Intelligent design (ID) has been challenged in court due primarily to its failure to offer any scientific proof of its validity. If credibility of a theory in science is based on observation and experimentation, then other claims, such as the origin of man, need to be addressed using the same parameters.
How does scientific discovery then intersect with issues of freedom of speech or religion?
If the discovery becomes a paradigm that would infringe upon the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, then it needs to be challenged in a court of law; not just by bloggers on the internet or ignorant twitter trolls who have no desire to separate facts from fiction.
To that extent, is this knowledge "necessary" or could it be black-boxed to reduce controversy?
Do not take anything for granted without thorough understanding of the motives and the facts behind a controversy.
Furthermore, how does scientific "fact" shape or create worldview?
More so, the lack of scientific fact can greatly impede progress. This has been seen time and again in recurring epidemics such as ebola in Africa where, following an outbreak, certain procedures are followed, only to be ignored once the epidemic subsides.
From an anthropological perspective, this is just one worldview of a particular culture- a scientific culture. Anthropology would then argue for relativism. Do you think that the belief in scientific fact is relative?
Reduction of natural phenomena to an ethnocentric bias leads to confrontation when a crisis emerges, especially in underdeveloped countries where disease and epidemic occur. Anthropologists might prefer to see the witch doctor come up with a life saving elixir but the World Health Organization has other ideas. Often times, the WHO doctors and nurses are put at risk due to the very bias of the locals in an environment associated with anthropology.
Or, do you think that its enforcement is a type of scientific imperialism?
The reason there are such laws such as quarantine of an epidemic outbreak is to prevent it from spreading. There are always any number of so-called community groups that, for personal, religious or political motives, use means at their disposal to criticize what may be for the benefit of all.
Five Questions:
What evidence best supports evolution (Ex: geological, paleontological, anthropological)?
Is the geologic-fossil record adequate to explain gaps in evolution that have been placed into the “missing link” file?
Which geologic theory best supports evolution, young-earth or old-earth?
Is there any evidence in earth science to support spontaneous generation of a species?
How do you account for prehistoric remains of man appearing in various remote locations around the globe?
Image Credit:
Evolution | Definition, History, Types, & Examples | BritannicaBehind the iron horse driving industry as it progressed from the early stages referred to as the Industrial Revolution came some unexpected byproducts, one of which led to theories on the origin of man himself. Industry demanded fuel to feed the factories, coal was the driving force; behind it the geology of where to find it. The field of geology developed and led to the unexpected results of fossilized discoveries of a past so remote, scientists debated over whether the record could ever possibly be complete or not. In fact, scientists who began to investigate the beginnings which they rejected as universal, as the Biblical Great Flood suggested, found a record so incomplete they became constant objects of ridicule. The easiest way to rationalize it was to create a “missing link” hypothesis whenever the record came up short of expectations. They all seemed to agree on one thing and that fell into the other hypothesis that came to be known as “evolution.”
It was the search for raw materials such as coal and iron that opened the door of Creation itself, and what lay beyond forced a radical new departure in the rather unsophisticated interpretation man had of himself. Certainly it was an oversimplification to dwell in the “pride of wisdom” (Frankenstein, Shelley, Vol III, Ch 6), with a great deal of self-congratulation for surviving the dark ages, plague, and the Reign of Terror. But all the answers weren’t in the dawn of scientific discovery, just a bunch of math equations and steam. The real missing link was how did man fit into the scheme of things, and above all, where did he come from?
It would be a rather sophomoric to attempt a long explanation in so short an essay but suffice it to say the above remains unanswered, especially the part of the fossil record, where new primeval discoveries are made on a constant basis. New skulls of primitive man appear in unexpected places dislodging accepted evolutionary trees. Yes, Humboldt and Cuvier rearranged the way scientists saw the world, the notion of anthropocentrism became far more complex. If anything, the disciplines of science and natural history may have diverged, instead of converged, without their contributions, along with their contemporaries.
How do you think Frankenstein is best engaging in a discussion about the relationship between science and society? It is a matter of consequences for actions. In the case of the protagonist Victor, he has a unique ability to go where the science of the day dare not tread; but when the experiment gets out of control, he attempts to absolve himself of the consequences. He assumes guilt but also discovers nobody believes what he has done. It may have been a prevailing attitude of the times.
What kind of romantic, enlightenment or other social ideas are present?
Kinship plays an important part in the story and genuine concern for family members, those living and those who have met misfortune, recur as social themes throughout.
What types of science, technology, innovation, and reasoning are incorporated? Victor didn’t really become convinced of the latest scientific achievements of his contemporaries until a lightning bolt disintegrated a tree (Vol I, Ch 1) followed by his father demonstrating some basics of electricity. Before that, he had been infatuated by some of the pseudo-scientific scholars of previous times. He then went to Ingolstadt, Germany for his education into more formal aspects of science.
How is Shelley a reflection of her time? Although she was a product of a very robust scientific and industrial upheaval during her lifetime, she was nonetheless surrounded by poets who encouraged her to become one of them. That did not appear good enough for her and the result was something far more unique than the standardized romantic prose of her day. One cannot fully appreciate the rare quality she had in assembling one of the most enduring horror stories of modern civilization.
What does it tell us about the integration of science and society into everyday life, as well as prior historical motions on "modern" awareness? Society is out of touch with itself due to the rapid advance of technology. It has become far too easy to immerse oneself in all the gadgetry available to the average person and overlook one’s own internal, instinctive capability. All of that has been transferred into computers, cell phones, video games, corny superhero films, the list is infinite. We may be at a breakpoint in our ability to remain in touch with ourselves.
Given the rather rude welcome man received at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution; with all of its gadgets, inventions, uncertainty and enslavement to machinery, it is no surprise a counter reception resulted. Known as Romanticism, since it is always useful to label a movement and heap all of its disciples into it, the poets, artists and writers of the era rediscovered the simplicity and inspiration of nature around them. The readings included in “Romantic Poetry” clearly indicate the desire to completely ignore progress and instead replace it with birds, sheep, suicidal herbs and singing peasants while they harvested grain. It is no wonder the poets didn’t hail the ostrich that stuck its head into the sand when confronted with something way beyond its power to comprehend. This appears to be a reactionary attitude by those who promoted the movement instead of glorifying scientific achievement for what it was worth. After all, civilization had just survived, barely, the bubonic plague.
Certainly there was merit to inspiration as opposed to invention, for escapism to neutralize reason, for fantasy to contradict reality. To what degree the general population embraced romantic thinkers and artisans of the time, when it came to working and the everyday struggle to survive, may never be known. But of the two, the commoner had no choice but to depend on progress. At least from all of it, as the era matured, came the gradual fusion of the two in the genre that came to be known as “science fiction.”
The term itself appears to be an etymological throwback to cover all of the visionary, space-time travel, monster creations from the 19th century onward to present. In fact, the term “science fiction” itself wasn’t really considered a genre until the early 20th century. An LA Times article on 30 March, 1930 reports,
“A new order of fiction founded upon science has been born. Like all newborn things, however, it is in the babbling stage..”
Before that, the only unique piece that fit the genre was Voltaire’s “Micromégas” published in 1752. Highlights of the genre include Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” in the early 1800’s but that, like Voltaire’s novella, was also one of a kind. It wasn’t until the Industrial Revolution had solid ground under it that Jules Verne appeared on the scene and created his famous characters, such as Captain Nemo and Phileas Fogg, that the genre found a place in literary history. There were others such as Aldous Huxley and HG Wells who capitalized on themes of future utopias and invasions from space. Sci-fi reached its evolution from the babbling stage about the time of the atomic bomb, Cold War and Sputnik. Anyone who lived through that era and saw all the films for a dollar a carload at the drive-in will agree you needed to really, really stretch your imagination to believe them to be even remotely possible. That discussion will be saved for another time.
To be fair, the Romanticists probably felt their efforts were not in vain. They were idealistic protesters against a scientific juggernaut that swept civilization into modern times, whether it wanted to be or not, and whether or not it was the best thing for mankind.
.............................................................................
Enlightenment-French Revolution-Human Rights
Nowhere in the 17 points of the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen” published in August, 1789 by the French National Assembly is slavery explicitly outlawed, in much the same way the US Constitution was crafted to avoid mention of it. In fact, no sooner than the first article assures man is free and equal in rights, does the second article guarantee him his property, which translated in the United States Constitution, meant slaves. Bordering on bureaucratic doublespeak for the rest of the covenant, citizens, except the Jews, was just how the government intended to function. The Jews, of course, were guilty of usury, were loan sharks and weren’t allowed to be considered citizens. As for the women, de Gouges, in her counter-declaration, sounding a great deal like Kitty Wells in her 1952 Grand Ole Opry rebuttal of Hank Thompson’s “Wild Side of Life,” laid down the law for where the stronger gender stood in human rights. It was received in about the same way NBC banned “Honky Tonk Angels” from the airwaves. We may take notice here of the case of Thomas Jefferson, one of the crafters of the US Constitution. He owned slaves so it was sensible for him to dial them out in a fair shake and rationalized them off as “property.” By the same token, when he married, he assumed his wife’s father’s burdensome debt, which placed him in financial chains for most of his life. So it wasn’t always a given for a state leader in a revolution to come up with the right answers for everyone.
Bottom line, the white man’s law, transformed by the stroke of the pen into yet another form of misleading dogma promising freedom for everyone except women and slaves, did nothing more than replace the monarchy with yet another group of hulking male honchos with self-interests not unlike their erstwhile predecessors. Of particular interest, however, is Raynal’s “Antislavery Agitation” dated in 1770 calling on the Great Emancipator to come hither and free the slaves from their miserable existence. The world would have to wait nearly 100 years and a great Civil War in America to see slavery abolished forever. The savior, it turned out was white, President Abraham Lincoln. Even then an amendment to the US Constitution had to be enacted to assure rights for those who were in bondage. Raynal was wrong about the end of the black code following emancipation and it took another 100 years for the Civil Rights Act to be passed by Congress.
Is it fair to choose between the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, were the two a product of each other, perhaps. But while many understood the concepts of the scientific movement, they may have been ignorant of the social one. The reverse may not have been true, the moral philosophers of the social upheaval were keen to comprehend the scientific achievements around them so of the two, the Enlightenment was the greater force.
Questions in the footnotes:
Were these so-called declarations nothing more than yet another form of white man’s control over slaves and women?
Although reason appeared to be the vanguard for the fall of the monarchy, did it follow up in the execution of the revolution as witnessed by those who were doomed to the guillotine?
...............................................................
The Scientific Revolution (Newton, Harvey, Leibniz, Descartes)
In Chapter 5 of Ede’s “A History of Science in Society,” the author mentions the expression “gestalt switch” in the opening paragraph related to how Descartes, Newton and others arrived at their groundbreaking new principles of mathematics in particular. The expression is probably a variation of “gestalt shift” and can be synonymous to “paradigm shift” which means a radical new way of looking at something. Before getting into what actually happened it might be necessary to understand what brought it about.
Notice in the PDF article on Leibniz his assertion as to the appearance of the numerical system evidently introduced by Pope Sylvester II around the year 1000 AD. In addition to this rather fundamental system of counting, apart from the easily read but confusing Chinese Fuxi system, came algebra, developed throughout history and eventually resting at the doorstep of Rene Descartes. If any shift occurred, it began with his “discovery” of analytic geometry. One cannot emphasize the importance of Descartes’ contribution to the gestalt switch that brought about the invention of calculus. But to characterize it as a “discovery” probably sells Descartes short since he more than likely exerted a great deal of effort in putting it all together.
This brings us to a reexamination of just how the scientific method operates and the fine line drawn between failure and success. It also draws attention to a question brought up at the end of the lecture on June 12 as to why some names become household and those of the lab technicians are relegated, in the expression popularized by erstwhile dictator Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, to the “dustbin of history.” In fact, there will be an important question addressing this paradox in the footnotes. In the meantime, we will stay with algebra and utilize a rather fundamental operation it employs to solve equations, substitution. The substitution here involved will replace gestalt or paradigm shift, with “quantum leap.” Obviously, even though some of the physicists (or natural philosophers of the Newtonian era) partially understood a corpuscular theory of light and particle physics, it may be noted that indeed, great discoveries may well be considered quantum leaps, not mere paradigm shifts. The perception then becomes one of not just looking at something in a different way, as an optical illusion or Escher drawing suggests, but a complete breakdown of expectations when the results are astonishing.
Can we expect to come up with major scientific breakthrough via the usual suspects of induction and deduction? Possibly but the time frame can be decades and generations, perhaps whole civilizations may pass before our eyes until any new truly remarkable discovery is made. The two methods may be the pathways to reach the result, where the end indeed justifies the means, but beyond that, a wholly new system must be incorporated in order to account for the ignorance that existed before the discovery was made. That system became analytic geometry.
Not only did it integrate geometry with algebra, but brought trigonometry and a host of other orphan mathematical disciplines under its wing. It made the development of calculus a given, an intuitive extension that made the Age of Descartes eventually become the Age of Newton. For it was Isaac Newton who managed to employ the Cartesian system into astronomy and physics.
We are of course, overlooking another great aspect in the gestalt-paradigm shift evolved into the quantum leap; that is the importance of the “accidental” discovery in history and science. By accident, Columbus discovered America. By accident in the 1870s Bell discovered the telephone and Roentgen the x-ray two decades later. There were others in medicine such as penicillin. We are forever at the mercy of our own failure turned success just by circumstance, fate, probability and maybe even Grand Design. One can never anticipate the results until they happen. This decides who gets to be in the history books and, such as Alexander Graham Bell and who does not, such as Elisha Gray.
Therefore, the footnote questions :
Is there a force unseen which can be defined as “historical selection” that operates in the same fashion as Darwinian natural selection that decides, when it comes to great discoveries and scientific achievement, who is in and who is out?
Is there an intuitive (instinctive) basis to discovery that goes beyond the normal routes of inductive and deductive reasoning that allows for success, or even an accident that creates success?
..........................................................................
Hakluyt, Sahagun, Mbemba, Voices II
Europe, by the 15th century, having struggled through the Dark Ages and The Plague, saw the rise of feudalism, kings and their courts. Expansion always follows stability and Europe was no exception. The turning point came with the discovery of America which led to the slave trade. By the 1700’s, economic scholars such as JS Mill and Adam Smith envisioned a capitalist society beyond agricultural as the best hope for a strong nation that would reach the apex of its development. The mercantile system would not necessarily be technologically driven at first for it was the slave trade to the colonies that was the most lucrative, along with its yields such as sugar and tobacco. Even as the dawn of the Industrial Age began at the turn of the 18th century in England with the development of the steam engine, the British would not allow its scientific advances to be exported to Europe or to the colonies in order to maintain a monopoly on technology. There was something to be said for the combined forces of invention and isolationism to keep the competition at a distance and control trade and development.
In the 16th century, the Spanish rulers were busy issuing charters to explorers such as Cortez, de Soto, Coronado and Balboa, all of whom were gold hungry adelantos and conquistadores, ravaging the New World from Florida to Mexico. They were desperate adventurists out to find lost cities and fountains of youth, eager to repay the loans provided by their royal benefactors. Most of them died penniless and in ruin but only after creating an unforgettable mark on the Native Americans whom they enslaved and slaughtered as they marched with their armies toward the rainbow on a distant horizon.
The underlying theme in both Sahagun and Mbemba is nothing less than greed. The former was a 15th century war correspondent who witnessed the atrocities committed by the Spaniards as they conquered Mexico, leaving in their trail beheaded Aztecs and the lust for gold and glory that doomed just about every adelanto and conquistador expedition to the New World during that era. The latter was a self-declared king of the dark African protonation of the Congo. His trade was the slave trade and, according to the correspondence exchanged with the king of Portugal, you couldn’t give the Congo king enough, he seemed to always want more. It is ironic, of course, that the Congo king wanted doctors and medicine, apocatheries and medical administrators. Even as we open this CH 212 course in the scientific history of Europe post feudal-conquest-colonial era, the Congo currently struggles with yet another ebola outbreak where nearly 30 deaths have currently been recorded by the World Health Organization.
At the heart, thus, of the motivation described by the Spanish monk or in the letters of the Congo king was exploitation of fellow humans, not cultural, societal or scientific advance. Quite possibly the best way to interpret the era of conquest and slave trading would be through the Polish sociologist Ludwig Gumplowicz, who in the 19th century may be considered the first to describe “ethnocentrism” not as a relative anthropological concept but one of class struggle and warfare as a means to an end for the advance of civilization.
..