“Our technologies establish the truth of many of our scientific laws.” Is there any comparable means of establishing moral rules and norms?
Making a statement that science and technology are synonymous is fundamentally wrong as well. Science is a process and technology is a possible outcome of the process.
Technology should never define morality. It should not be a factor in what people decide is right and wrong. Instead, humanity should work to define what actions are right and wrong in respect to their morals. What we do with the technology we have is argued about frequently. This is a problem that has plagued the human race since the dawn of time. Just because a caveman CAN bash someone’s head in with a club doesn't mean SHOULD. Just because someone can point a gun and pull a trigger doesn't mean they should. Technology does however cause the norms of society to change. Technology can improve the standard of living and often does. If a family can afford the expense, it is unlikely that they will not have a cell phone. This is a phenomenon that is very heavily relied on in today's busy lifestyle. Not having a cell phone can be seen as a disadvantage in many cases. As a teenager it is socially crippling to not be able to be in direct contact with your friends. This may isolate you because you are not as easy to reach and make plans with. Many kids my age wouldn't know what to do if they didn't have a way to talk to their friends on a constant and regular basis. In business, there is a very big disadvantage to not being accessible at all times of the day. This can result in missed deals or less opportunity. Wireless technology has brought the world even closer. If you are not a phone call away, your success will be extremely limited if possible at all.
Although technology has changed the way we see the world there are still basic moral rules that should be followed. Does technology make the way we look at things change? Killing is seen as wrong in almost every culture around the world. However, throughout history there have been more attempts to create new ways to torture or kill another human being than any other focus. Why would there be so much effort put into something that the majority of the world sees as inherently wrong? It could be human nature to go against the social norm. It also may stem from our animal idea of survival of the fittest. This has changed from the smaller fight of who has the bigest stick to who has the biggest bomb. The ability to kill the most people in the quickest and easiest way has defined the world leaders since international trade began. Has the relative ease of murder changed the idea that it is morally wrong to take the life of a fellow human? I think the justice system has proven that this although there is a faster increase of the ways you can commit murder, that does not make it okay to do so. Can you blame someone for murder when there are so many means of doing so? Common law around the world has answered this with a YES.
Clearly, there are ways that technology can change teh ways in which people interact, but not the way in which they should act.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Evaluating Knowledge Through The Learning Process
“What distinguishes Areas of Knowledge from one another is not how ideas are generated, but how they are evaluated.” Do you agree? The general areas of knowledge--in a school setting--are Math, Science, Social Studies, and Reading and Writing. The last two are complimentary. They all coexist to give a broad area of common knowledge that society has decided is necessary to know before adulthood. This is why we study them for high school graduation requirements. If you've been to high school, it is evident that the approach to teaching each subject is different. Some subjects are better taught through hands on approach. In contrast, there are some concepts that are easier to grasp through visual means of learning. The five basic ways of learning are visual, verbal, kinesthetic, audio, and tactile (or hands-on). There has been more emphasis on the most efficient way of learning is different for each learner in a school setting, but many students have to adapt to the way that a subject is best taught. They also must adapt to the way the teacher prefers to teach their subject of choice. It is not hard to believe that the way a subject is evaluated has roots in the best way that it is taught. Because of this, looking at the end result of evaluation is not as important as the beginning when the knowledge is learned. Visual learners learn best from seeing the knowledge they are supposed to be learning. People with a more photographic memory are more likely to be visual learners because of their ability to remember the information they see. This is valuable in a math class if you can remember the process that a teacher shows you. Does this mean that Math is distinguished by the fact that it may be better learned by a visual learner? Verbal learners are more adaptable and prefer putting information into language. Taking notes and repeat the information that is given to them. This is the type of person that would excel in English classes. Putting information into their own language to better understand it is often the best way for them to learn. Taking notes is a skill that is very stressed in school, which may lead these students to succeed and get better grades. Verbal learning is at the core of English, which makes it reasonable that this is a defining factor of this subject. Kinesthetic learners are more independent learners. They have a need to see how something works first hand to understand it. Watching someone do something isn't helpful to these learners. They need to manipulate the situation themselves. These students aren't as active in school and tend to get bored. You see these kids really standing out in science experiments that they can participate in. Being able to see and be a part of a process is the best for kinesthetic learner. It is not logical to say that this means science can only be learned through kinesthetic, however. There are multiple approaches that can be taken to teach science which makes it impractical to label it based on the way a specific learner absorbs this information.
The ability to remember the things you hear makes you more of an audio learner. These are the types of people that can recall what someone told them years ago whenever something triggers that memory. This results in students that may need to study a lot or read something out loud to themselves. These learners strive in a setting where a lecture takes place. History is a great subject that can be greatly taught through speech. This is the way stories were passed down for hundreds of years before written language was developed. Once again, there are various ways that History can be taught which makes it indefinable by one style of learning.
Tactile learners relate closely to kinesthetic learners. These are logical thinkers that see things in a step by step manner. Tactiles learn to figure things out in their heads. They also tend to take apart something to see how it works. Like kinesthetics, they may lead towards the sciences, but especially engineering. They can also fall into the mathematician category because much of math is a step by step process. Cause and effect of historical events has its appeal as well because of the similiar cycles that have been seen in the past. The writing process can also be very methodical which can draw in a tactical learner. Since this kind of learner can find a way to strive in many settings, does it mean that there is a common basis among the Areas of Knowledge? I believe that areas of knowledge are defined based on the way individuals best learn the subject area. This is what has separated knowers since teaching began.
The ability to remember the things you hear makes you more of an audio learner. These are the types of people that can recall what someone told them years ago whenever something triggers that memory. This results in students that may need to study a lot or read something out loud to themselves. These learners strive in a setting where a lecture takes place. History is a great subject that can be greatly taught through speech. This is the way stories were passed down for hundreds of years before written language was developed. Once again, there are various ways that History can be taught which makes it indefinable by one style of learning.
Tactile learners relate closely to kinesthetic learners. These are logical thinkers that see things in a step by step manner. Tactiles learn to figure things out in their heads. They also tend to take apart something to see how it works. Like kinesthetics, they may lead towards the sciences, but especially engineering. They can also fall into the mathematician category because much of math is a step by step process. Cause and effect of historical events has its appeal as well because of the similiar cycles that have been seen in the past. The writing process can also be very methodical which can draw in a tactical learner. Since this kind of learner can find a way to strive in many settings, does it mean that there is a common basis among the Areas of Knowledge? I believe that areas of knowledge are defined based on the way individuals best learn the subject area. This is what has separated knowers since teaching began.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Its a Fact
Our society has put more emphasis on the insurance behind saying something is a fact. This is something that many people find comforting. When someone claims a statement to be a fact there is more acceptance of that statement. They almost equate facts with Truths. This is not very stable when what we believe is a fact today may not be a fact tomorrow. How than can you prove the validity of a statement?
If you can't rely on facts to make a statement true (this is truth with a lower case t) or false, then you must rely on your intuition. Your own thoughts or feelings towards something must serve as the validity for whatever that something may be. This gets messy, because every individual human on this planet has a different interpretation of things. They may have some common ground, but different backgrounds and experiences lead to different personal points of view. This can make things difficult when you are dealing with things like international relations. Countries have different cultures that sway the way they think and act. This can go deeper into the way languages play a different role for different words as well. When you don't have that social norm as a common ground to interact upon, then you can end up fighting affecting the lives of millions. The facts that get lost in translation have an effect on people around the world. Can a fact remain solid if it is passed through multiple languages? This is dependant on the languages and how much trust is instilled in the translator.
This is why we need facts. People need facts so they can feel secure about what the other person means. Facts, whether proven or theoretical, can provide the common ground for interpersonal relations. Once you have this common ground, things become clearer than they were before when interpretation was the only reasoning available. It is true that facts have changed over the course of history. Facts are looked at more and more closely in recent years as well. People are skeptical of what they hear. This is most likely a result of the amendments of information that has forever been seen as true. This change over time is not a bad thing though. It is assuring that what we view as a fact is being challenged continuously. This constant challenge results in a better understanding of things in the world around us.
This should not discount the power of intuition. Although I do believe in sound evidence, I know that there are times when a "gut feeling" can be stronger than the logical answer. Some of these gut feelings may have a logical basis that determines the reaction of an individual. These hunches are not often acted upon as quickly as the logical approach would be, but they are nevertheless there. This does not mean that someone’s initial feeling on something is right or that it will pay out in the end, but at times you just know that what you feel you should do is the best option. There are always choices to decide what is best at the time; logic or intuition. Suppose a building is on fire and there is a possibility that there are still people in the building. A fireman may look at the situation logically. He has training that alters the way he sees the situation. It is a very calculated event to someone that has gone through the same crisis before. There are steps that the fireman would take that are different than what the actions of a normal person would be. A normal person may not choose to do anything at all. This is definitely based off a logical thought that most likely they will be powerless to help even if they tried. There is also the concept of self-preservation that is very logical. But this doesn't account for the good citizen that runs in despite the odds. This is when intuition beats logical thought processes. Acting on your intuition is a risk, but the result may be positive.
Completely belief and faith in facts is probably a bad decision. With the constant change in the way society views things there is no room to fully trust the statements of the masses. But to reject every statement that is portrayed as a fact would be a waste of time in the end. Skepticism to a point is a understandable and even beneficial, but there is a line that can be crossed that makes disbelief counter productive. Conspiracy theories can only go so far until they are proven one way or another.
If you can't rely on facts to make a statement true (this is truth with a lower case t) or false, then you must rely on your intuition. Your own thoughts or feelings towards something must serve as the validity for whatever that something may be. This gets messy, because every individual human on this planet has a different interpretation of things. They may have some common ground, but different backgrounds and experiences lead to different personal points of view. This can make things difficult when you are dealing with things like international relations. Countries have different cultures that sway the way they think and act. This can go deeper into the way languages play a different role for different words as well. When you don't have that social norm as a common ground to interact upon, then you can end up fighting affecting the lives of millions. The facts that get lost in translation have an effect on people around the world. Can a fact remain solid if it is passed through multiple languages? This is dependant on the languages and how much trust is instilled in the translator.
This is why we need facts. People need facts so they can feel secure about what the other person means. Facts, whether proven or theoretical, can provide the common ground for interpersonal relations. Once you have this common ground, things become clearer than they were before when interpretation was the only reasoning available. It is true that facts have changed over the course of history. Facts are looked at more and more closely in recent years as well. People are skeptical of what they hear. This is most likely a result of the amendments of information that has forever been seen as true. This change over time is not a bad thing though. It is assuring that what we view as a fact is being challenged continuously. This constant challenge results in a better understanding of things in the world around us.
This should not discount the power of intuition. Although I do believe in sound evidence, I know that there are times when a "gut feeling" can be stronger than the logical answer. Some of these gut feelings may have a logical basis that determines the reaction of an individual. These hunches are not often acted upon as quickly as the logical approach would be, but they are nevertheless there. This does not mean that someone’s initial feeling on something is right or that it will pay out in the end, but at times you just know that what you feel you should do is the best option. There are always choices to decide what is best at the time; logic or intuition. Suppose a building is on fire and there is a possibility that there are still people in the building. A fireman may look at the situation logically. He has training that alters the way he sees the situation. It is a very calculated event to someone that has gone through the same crisis before. There are steps that the fireman would take that are different than what the actions of a normal person would be. A normal person may not choose to do anything at all. This is definitely based off a logical thought that most likely they will be powerless to help even if they tried. There is also the concept of self-preservation that is very logical. But this doesn't account for the good citizen that runs in despite the odds. This is when intuition beats logical thought processes. Acting on your intuition is a risk, but the result may be positive.
Completely belief and faith in facts is probably a bad decision. With the constant change in the way society views things there is no room to fully trust the statements of the masses. But to reject every statement that is portrayed as a fact would be a waste of time in the end. Skepticism to a point is a understandable and even beneficial, but there is a line that can be crossed that makes disbelief counter productive. Conspiracy theories can only go so far until they are proven one way or another.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Kyoto
America has been seen a, if not the only, leader of the world for a long time now. We have set the standards for many changes in the world. We have directed the treaties that have had an impact on the globalization of earth. Most notably are the UN and NATO. Why then, should we be lagging behind in the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG)? There are many ways to look at the reasons of not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. Whether or not President elect Barrack Obama should set this treaty towards ratification is something that many people are debating. This is ultimately not up to him though, it is up to the bipartisan Senate. The motives behind Democrats and Republicans will be different, but hopefully it will come down to what is best not what special interests desire.
George Washington delivered one of the only fairwell addresses that we care about. He said that America should stand clear of permanent foriegn alliances. A global treaty that could possibly cause negative effects for the American economy is one of these undesirable alliances. This is, however, in direct opposition to the United Nations which America basicly created. We have already entered in permanent alliances that we believed would benefit us along with the world.
America has always prided itself on the fact that we are the inovators of the world. We have an image that we are supposed to be the protectors of the less fortunate. This is the main reason that so many people believe we should be in Darfur. Genocide in one country is seen as an immediate problem that should have the attention of America. Global warming is one of these immediate issues as well. The economy may lag behind for a time but in the long run, there will be greater benefits. Signing the Kyoto Protocol doesn't have to be the way that America steps up and leads the country in acting against global warming but there is definitely a global need for action. The newly elected president should find a program that he believes will put America on top when it comes to preventing the rise of GHG. He should look past partisan politics and do what the world really needs. If that need is a global treaty to better the earth so be it.
George Washington delivered one of the only fairwell addresses that we care about. He said that America should stand clear of permanent foriegn alliances. A global treaty that could possibly cause negative effects for the American economy is one of these undesirable alliances. This is, however, in direct opposition to the United Nations which America basicly created. We have already entered in permanent alliances that we believed would benefit us along with the world.
America has always prided itself on the fact that we are the inovators of the world. We have an image that we are supposed to be the protectors of the less fortunate. This is the main reason that so many people believe we should be in Darfur. Genocide in one country is seen as an immediate problem that should have the attention of America. Global warming is one of these immediate issues as well. The economy may lag behind for a time but in the long run, there will be greater benefits. Signing the Kyoto Protocol doesn't have to be the way that America steps up and leads the country in acting against global warming but there is definitely a global need for action. The newly elected president should find a program that he believes will put America on top when it comes to preventing the rise of GHG. He should look past partisan politics and do what the world really needs. If that need is a global treaty to better the earth so be it.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Lingo
Language is the first step towards civilization. It is the core of everything that we know and understand. We really don't take the ability to speak, read, and write in consideration very often, but it is the foundation of how far human beings have come. Language has a role in everything involving the physical world. The aptitude of the human brain to develop and understand a language, or multiple languages, is a testament to the vast space in our mind that can be filled with knowledge. Reasoning is the clearest cut way to use language. Once you step into the realm of emotion and perception the lines become skewed and blurred. The way language is used in respect to these is different yet vital for comprehension.
Denotation is the direct dictionary definition for a word. The interesting part is that most dictionaries do not have the exact same definition for a word. Nevertheless, they are generally similar and can come to a common consensus. When you use the specific definition for a word it is assumed that those around you will have a fair amount of understanding. This is the way that language is best used in terms of reasoning. There are many words in English that have very closely related definitions. This makes it possible to describe the reasoning for something in a generally easy way. The rawest form of reasoning without any form of personal point of view can be construed to a large audience by simply speaking about it. Writing takes on different meaning even if you just use the denotation of a word. This is where grammar comes in and has an effect on meaning. For example, there are sentences that can be completely altered by a comma. "The panda eats shoots and leaves." This is a sentence describing the vegetation that a panda consumes in its diet. This is greatly changed with the placement of commas. "The panda eats, shoots, and leaves." This makes it seem as though the panda is a gunman in a restaurant even though the denotation of the words is used. This seems to defy any common sense or reasoning, because pandas do not eat in restaurants or carry weapons. This misunderstanding is a result of the fact that English, along with many other languages, has different meanings for the exact same words. This can be confusing at times and may lead to bad comprehension of what is really going on. This may seem like an obscure case, but it may have consequences when these mistakes are made in different situations, such as science reports or court transcripts. Another way language plays into reasoning is in translation. There are more than six thousand known languages in the world. Some of these are only spoken language with no writing system. In every language, there are words, phrases, and ideas that do not translate literally. This leaves the possibility for error in understanding wide open. What becomes lost in translation may never be recovered. This is hazardous in issues of international interaction. If the others' language is not completely understood by one side, than there can be catastrophic misinterpretations. The reasoning of each side may not be effective based on this.
When you enter the world of perception the meaning of words can change. Connotation is the perceived definition of a word. This generally has a social understanding of the word, but it may not always be the same from person to person. There may be a big difference between "slim" and "skinny" for one person but not so much for another. Connotation is where language gets sticky and opens the door even further for misunderstanding. This can be in spoken and written language. When you speak, there is generally a tone to what you are saying. This is a way in which spoken language alters one's perception of meaning. This can be a good or bad change in understanding, but it is nevertheless present. When you write, this tone may become harder to recognize. This is based on an individual point of view of a reading. It may vary from person to person. Once again this can be horrible in different cases. Grammar is a way in which this tone is changed. Grammar and word choice can alter the speed of what is written therefore giving it a different tone or mood. This may not always be obvious, but authors are always trying to make the message they are sending through their work more clear. A lot is put into the way something transcends from the page to the mind. This is possibly lost, once again, in translation. It takes time to understand the difference in tone through script. This is something that many spend a long time learning when you are multi-lingual. The perception you get through language in terms of writing may be more powerful than speech alone. This is something that is individual and can conform to each individual that reads it. This is seen all the time in figurative language that is in poetry. Any type of figurative language can be used to alter the way in which each individual reader understand and interprets the poem. With all this said, it is essential to understand that the key element to what guides perception is emotion.
Emotion is what guides the actions and beliefs of each of the six billion people on the planet. This is the hand behind any thing that goes on in the world. Everything that we hear, see, or do goes through an emotional filter in our brain. This is evident in the way words can cause a big emotional charge in someone. Words like genocide, rape, puppy, or even chicken can cause an emotional roller coaster even if it goes unnoticed the majority of the time. Whatever the reason behind the emotion, it is still there. This usually varies on the background relationship with the word or words. It is hard to know how someone will act based on the terms you use. Politicians look at this when they begin every speech. They play with the words that they know will bring a crowd to their side and steer away from words that they know might incite negative emotions. This is a tool that can be utilized very effectively in terms of persuasion. Language can convince someone of virtually anything. Tone really plays into the emotion of language. Oration is a strong tool in portraying what you want to get across. Hitler was the prime example of how tone can get across your emotion and embed it in others. He was a very morally unjust man, but he understood the power that words can have on people. The comprehension of words get even foggier when you start using words to describe emotion. If it is not already hard enough to predict what emotions will come out based on the words used, it is exponentially harder when you use words to represent an emotion. Emotions are presumably different from person to person, therefore the description of them is near impossible. Love means something different for anyone that feels it. Happiness is different for anyone that seeks it. How then is language reliable in the is area? The obvious answer is that it is not. People have decided that it is necessary to describe everything around them, but in the end it is a fruitless waste of time. It results in a loss of what the emotion really is when you try to put a label on it. Language does not conform neatly to the realm of emotion.
Denotation is the direct dictionary definition for a word. The interesting part is that most dictionaries do not have the exact same definition for a word. Nevertheless, they are generally similar and can come to a common consensus. When you use the specific definition for a word it is assumed that those around you will have a fair amount of understanding. This is the way that language is best used in terms of reasoning. There are many words in English that have very closely related definitions. This makes it possible to describe the reasoning for something in a generally easy way. The rawest form of reasoning without any form of personal point of view can be construed to a large audience by simply speaking about it. Writing takes on different meaning even if you just use the denotation of a word. This is where grammar comes in and has an effect on meaning. For example, there are sentences that can be completely altered by a comma. "The panda eats shoots and leaves." This is a sentence describing the vegetation that a panda consumes in its diet. This is greatly changed with the placement of commas. "The panda eats, shoots, and leaves." This makes it seem as though the panda is a gunman in a restaurant even though the denotation of the words is used. This seems to defy any common sense or reasoning, because pandas do not eat in restaurants or carry weapons. This misunderstanding is a result of the fact that English, along with many other languages, has different meanings for the exact same words. This can be confusing at times and may lead to bad comprehension of what is really going on. This may seem like an obscure case, but it may have consequences when these mistakes are made in different situations, such as science reports or court transcripts. Another way language plays into reasoning is in translation. There are more than six thousand known languages in the world. Some of these are only spoken language with no writing system. In every language, there are words, phrases, and ideas that do not translate literally. This leaves the possibility for error in understanding wide open. What becomes lost in translation may never be recovered. This is hazardous in issues of international interaction. If the others' language is not completely understood by one side, than there can be catastrophic misinterpretations. The reasoning of each side may not be effective based on this.
When you enter the world of perception the meaning of words can change. Connotation is the perceived definition of a word. This generally has a social understanding of the word, but it may not always be the same from person to person. There may be a big difference between "slim" and "skinny" for one person but not so much for another. Connotation is where language gets sticky and opens the door even further for misunderstanding. This can be in spoken and written language. When you speak, there is generally a tone to what you are saying. This is a way in which spoken language alters one's perception of meaning. This can be a good or bad change in understanding, but it is nevertheless present. When you write, this tone may become harder to recognize. This is based on an individual point of view of a reading. It may vary from person to person. Once again this can be horrible in different cases. Grammar is a way in which this tone is changed. Grammar and word choice can alter the speed of what is written therefore giving it a different tone or mood. This may not always be obvious, but authors are always trying to make the message they are sending through their work more clear. A lot is put into the way something transcends from the page to the mind. This is possibly lost, once again, in translation. It takes time to understand the difference in tone through script. This is something that many spend a long time learning when you are multi-lingual. The perception you get through language in terms of writing may be more powerful than speech alone. This is something that is individual and can conform to each individual that reads it. This is seen all the time in figurative language that is in poetry. Any type of figurative language can be used to alter the way in which each individual reader understand and interprets the poem. With all this said, it is essential to understand that the key element to what guides perception is emotion.
Emotion is what guides the actions and beliefs of each of the six billion people on the planet. This is the hand behind any thing that goes on in the world. Everything that we hear, see, or do goes through an emotional filter in our brain. This is evident in the way words can cause a big emotional charge in someone. Words like genocide, rape, puppy, or even chicken can cause an emotional roller coaster even if it goes unnoticed the majority of the time. Whatever the reason behind the emotion, it is still there. This usually varies on the background relationship with the word or words. It is hard to know how someone will act based on the terms you use. Politicians look at this when they begin every speech. They play with the words that they know will bring a crowd to their side and steer away from words that they know might incite negative emotions. This is a tool that can be utilized very effectively in terms of persuasion. Language can convince someone of virtually anything. Tone really plays into the emotion of language. Oration is a strong tool in portraying what you want to get across. Hitler was the prime example of how tone can get across your emotion and embed it in others. He was a very morally unjust man, but he understood the power that words can have on people. The comprehension of words get even foggier when you start using words to describe emotion. If it is not already hard enough to predict what emotions will come out based on the words used, it is exponentially harder when you use words to represent an emotion. Emotions are presumably different from person to person, therefore the description of them is near impossible. Love means something different for anyone that feels it. Happiness is different for anyone that seeks it. How then is language reliable in the is area? The obvious answer is that it is not. People have decided that it is necessary to describe everything around them, but in the end it is a fruitless waste of time. It results in a loss of what the emotion really is when you try to put a label on it. Language does not conform neatly to the realm of emotion.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Worshiping at the Alter of Science
"Its a scientific fact." This is a phrase that rolls off the tongues of millions. For many this gives validity to any statement. When scientists come out with a new conclusion, the masses cling to it and take it as a fact. There is little scepticism among the majority when "they" say something is a fact. The term they is used everyday. "They say gravity is an attraction between two objects." "They say this is the best new wieghtloss program." These are both facts that have come from a type of scientist. The media puts these out as correct so people cling to them as truth. When did this absolute belief in science come about? This is something that is somewhat addressed in Embracing Mind. Although I don't agree with the majority of the book, I agree with the author's interpretation of history in respect to science and religion; for the most part.
As anyone that reads this blog can tell, I relate almost everything to history. Well, this is no different. I think there are a variety of reasons that science has taken over the everyday lives of most people today. Multiple steps have been taken to make this the "religion" for many. There was a time when people realized that they could benefit from knowing more about the natural world and its set principles. Understanding that wood will float in water ended up changing the world. Boats littered the oceans for hundreds of years. This was the first way that global commerce could get a foothold in th lives of people. Cultures were able to clash and combine. Continents were discovered. This was all a result of someone using science to better their life. Observation is a key component to the scientific method. Even the Bible sets high priority on the seeing-is-believing idea. Science is built off this principle. Observation is the key of any experiment. People have grown to rely soley on what their senses say is "real". There is speculation for anything that can not be seen or felt.
If it is not visible or palpible then it must not be real. This statement has validity in many respects, even to religion. Dictionary.com defines religion as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." This definiton is a combination of the tradition thought of religion and the new emergence of science as a religion. Most people equate religion with faith. This is the, sometimes, unjustified belief in events or facts. To the faithful, there may be plenty of justification. Most of this justification comes from the belief in a higher power that can make the seemingly impossible, possible. This belief and the testimony of others has been enough for the majority of the world to believe in different religions. The three most prominent religions in the world-Christianity, Judaism, and Islam-are all guided by the belief of a supreme creator and a book that gives the foundations of how to live. More people have died for their religious beliefs than for any other cause. This is because of a passionate and strong belief in something that can not be seen or felt. Science, on the other hand, relies on the ability to physically confirm a theory. It acts in the same way as a religion. It seeks to find the answers to the questions that are not obvious on the surface. Durnig the Enlightenment, there was a new belief that the scientific method could be used in the observations of social life. I think this is the point where science made the jump to be classified as a religion. Now it could be used in all aspects of life by anyone that choose to use it. Justification in science comes from the observation of the physical world instead of the ideas created by the affirmation of people that lived thousand of years ago. There have been no holy wars in the name of science, but science has led to the death of those whos technology was less supreme at the time. Its a sad thought, but it seems the beliefs that people around the world possess will only lead to the death of others that dont possess the same beliefs.
As anyone that reads this blog can tell, I relate almost everything to history. Well, this is no different. I think there are a variety of reasons that science has taken over the everyday lives of most people today. Multiple steps have been taken to make this the "religion" for many. There was a time when people realized that they could benefit from knowing more about the natural world and its set principles. Understanding that wood will float in water ended up changing the world. Boats littered the oceans for hundreds of years. This was the first way that global commerce could get a foothold in th lives of people. Cultures were able to clash and combine. Continents were discovered. This was all a result of someone using science to better their life. Observation is a key component to the scientific method. Even the Bible sets high priority on the seeing-is-believing idea. Science is built off this principle. Observation is the key of any experiment. People have grown to rely soley on what their senses say is "real". There is speculation for anything that can not be seen or felt.
If it is not visible or palpible then it must not be real. This statement has validity in many respects, even to religion. Dictionary.com defines religion as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." This definiton is a combination of the tradition thought of religion and the new emergence of science as a religion. Most people equate religion with faith. This is the, sometimes, unjustified belief in events or facts. To the faithful, there may be plenty of justification. Most of this justification comes from the belief in a higher power that can make the seemingly impossible, possible. This belief and the testimony of others has been enough for the majority of the world to believe in different religions. The three most prominent religions in the world-Christianity, Judaism, and Islam-are all guided by the belief of a supreme creator and a book that gives the foundations of how to live. More people have died for their religious beliefs than for any other cause. This is because of a passionate and strong belief in something that can not be seen or felt. Science, on the other hand, relies on the ability to physically confirm a theory. It acts in the same way as a religion. It seeks to find the answers to the questions that are not obvious on the surface. Durnig the Enlightenment, there was a new belief that the scientific method could be used in the observations of social life. I think this is the point where science made the jump to be classified as a religion. Now it could be used in all aspects of life by anyone that choose to use it. Justification in science comes from the observation of the physical world instead of the ideas created by the affirmation of people that lived thousand of years ago. There have been no holy wars in the name of science, but science has led to the death of those whos technology was less supreme at the time. Its a sad thought, but it seems the beliefs that people around the world possess will only lead to the death of others that dont possess the same beliefs.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Moral Action
"Doing the right things starts with knowing the right things." The "right things" can be defined differently for each individual. This can go further to encompass what a whole culture considers to be the "right thing". Morals vary from person to person, but there are common grounds. Virtually every culture in the world views murder as morally wrong. This comes down to an individual consensus that killing is wrong. Why then, are there murders all over the world every day? When is it ok to go against your moral judgement and take action that could be interpreted as the "wrong" thing? This does not just apply to murder. This can be any individual choice that is in opposition to that person's personal beliefs. One would tend to believe that this would require some strong reasoning. This reasoning would vary of course, but there would have to be some strong base whether it be ethical, emotional, or logical. The steps that an individual takes to create their idea of what is right and wrong can be a life long journey. The big question is what you decide to do with these morals. Morals are virtually meaningless until someone acts on them.
As an American kid, I was taught with my peers that America is the supreme power of the world. Social studies in school teach us about a glorified country that has led the world for almost a century. We are subconsciously taught to become "good Americans". Military service is advocated n almost every high school across the country. JROTC is in most public high schools. Along with that, recruiting officers can be seen traveling from school to school. Should everyone serve for their country? Many believe that this is essential to become a good American. There was a time in American history when people were prosecuted for their refusal to join their fellow Americans in arms. These were the Quakers. Their non-violent ideals made them turn the other cheek away from way they believed was morally wrong. So who was Right? Those that stood up for their country or those that held there religious beliefs close? If they both acted on what they truly believed to be morally right, than they both did the right thing. Each side will look at the other differently, but when it comes down to it the conscience of both are at ease. With this being said, its evident that doing the right thing is, among other things, simply a point of view.
I am the millennial generation. I am just one of the 95 million that echo the baby boomers. The Generation We video made me open my eyes to the huge issues that have been left behind by the generations before me. My generation is inheriting a country that is going in the wrong direction as a result of the bad choices made by those in power now. Our country is declining not because of outside influences, but because of the problems that have arose and been ignored inside. Sitting on the sidelines watching my country go into decline is morally wrong to me. The right thing is to make an effort in aiding my country's revival. Now that I've defined what the right thing is, the next step is answering the call to action that has been sent. At the moment, all I can do is wait for the first chance I have to excersize my inalienable right of voting. Voting is the best way for the majority to get out what they want to say. The millennial generation is in the best position to prove this point in a way that it has never been affirmed before. Once everyone in my generation has the power of a vote, we will be the biggest demographic of voters. We can literally determine the national elections. This is the best way for the masses to affect the direction of the country, but I'm aiming for something more. There is a limited number of people that make the laws for our country. They are the 535 men and women elected into Congress. 100 of these make up the Senate leaving 435 in the House of Representatives. To me, serving in one of these seats is the most supreme way to do good for my country. These are the elite in the American system of government. To me its not the military action that changes the world, its the legislative moves that our country takes. A seat in Congress is the "Right" thing to do for the progress of my country and generation.
As an American kid, I was taught with my peers that America is the supreme power of the world. Social studies in school teach us about a glorified country that has led the world for almost a century. We are subconsciously taught to become "good Americans". Military service is advocated n almost every high school across the country. JROTC is in most public high schools. Along with that, recruiting officers can be seen traveling from school to school. Should everyone serve for their country? Many believe that this is essential to become a good American. There was a time in American history when people were prosecuted for their refusal to join their fellow Americans in arms. These were the Quakers. Their non-violent ideals made them turn the other cheek away from way they believed was morally wrong. So who was Right? Those that stood up for their country or those that held there religious beliefs close? If they both acted on what they truly believed to be morally right, than they both did the right thing. Each side will look at the other differently, but when it comes down to it the conscience of both are at ease. With this being said, its evident that doing the right thing is, among other things, simply a point of view.
I am the millennial generation. I am just one of the 95 million that echo the baby boomers. The Generation We video made me open my eyes to the huge issues that have been left behind by the generations before me. My generation is inheriting a country that is going in the wrong direction as a result of the bad choices made by those in power now. Our country is declining not because of outside influences, but because of the problems that have arose and been ignored inside. Sitting on the sidelines watching my country go into decline is morally wrong to me. The right thing is to make an effort in aiding my country's revival. Now that I've defined what the right thing is, the next step is answering the call to action that has been sent. At the moment, all I can do is wait for the first chance I have to excersize my inalienable right of voting. Voting is the best way for the majority to get out what they want to say. The millennial generation is in the best position to prove this point in a way that it has never been affirmed before. Once everyone in my generation has the power of a vote, we will be the biggest demographic of voters. We can literally determine the national elections. This is the best way for the masses to affect the direction of the country, but I'm aiming for something more. There is a limited number of people that make the laws for our country. They are the 535 men and women elected into Congress. 100 of these make up the Senate leaving 435 in the House of Representatives. To me, serving in one of these seats is the most supreme way to do good for my country. These are the elite in the American system of government. To me its not the military action that changes the world, its the legislative moves that our country takes. A seat in Congress is the "Right" thing to do for the progress of my country and generation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)