Angel Zuleta Intro to Literature The Birth Mark 1. How does the narrator feel about the protagonist? List two details and explain how those details support your own opinion. I believe the narrator views Aylmer as a very smart scientist but also as an ignorant man. I believe the narrator believes he is smart because the way he introduced Aylmer as “A man of science, an eminent proficient in every branch of natural philosophy.” I believe he feels Alymer is ignorant in trying to change nature with the use of science.
In “The Birthmark” by Nathaniel Hawthorne is based on a scientist, Aylmer, who is obsessed with perfection. Aylmer strives for perfection through science, not nature. He thinks everything can be fixed with science and falls to the temptation to fix his wife's natural imperfection. Aylmer, a man of science, is preoccupied with his profession and just wanted to prove science that science was the only perfect thing that existed. He also wanted to prove that science was perfect unlike nature, which was full of flaws, according to him.
In an argument essay from Johnson- Sheehan, he counterfeits the disadvantage about metaphor in science. “We cannot make up our minds about how ‘normal’ metaphors work or how they are used, then how are we to resolve these issues with scientific metaphors?” (John-Sheehan, 177). There is limitation to our imagination and it leads to conflict with the cultural views. Metaphor is used as a sophisticate way of sarcasm and as a beautiful lie. Most of Darwin’s ideas are based on metaphor, he reasons by analogy, but at the same time there are some problem of doing so, and the major difficult in Darwin’s text is how to make sense of the process that he described.
Scientifics use the quasi experimentation to look for cause and effect, when a controlled experiment is impossible because of ethics, money or time are not available. Just like any other experiment they have the independent and dependent and independent variable, however since is not a true experiment Scientifics often use the term predictor variable referring to the independent variable and criterion variable to refer to the dependent variable (Carlo et al., 1998, 278). In addition to the alternate term for variables, since in most quasi experiments there are not experimental or controlled groups, Scientifics use the terms exposure group to represent the experimental group, and comparison group to represent the control group (Rossi & Freeman, 1989,
Jekyll, Dr. Lanyon has a more organized and principled perspective on science. Dr. Lanyon’s scientific point of view can be compared to a stereotypical outlook of how scientists are like in real life. However, Dr. Lanyon’s philosophy can be seen as dull, uncreative and safe, in contrast to Dr. Jekyll’s philosophy. During the novella, Dr. Jekyll expresses his distastefulness for Dr. Lanyon’s idea when he says, “Oh, I know he’s a good fellow-you needn’t frown-an excellent fellow, and I always mean to see more of him; but a hide-bound pedant for all that; an ignorant, blatant pedant. I was never more disappointed in any man than Lanyon” (Stevenson 24) Dr. Jekyll does have a sense of respect for Dr. Lanyon but he believes that Dr. Lanyon could be so much more with his scientific talent, if he wasn’t such a mundane spirit.
Major Structuralist Thinkers • Wilhelm Wundt • Edward B. Titchner Criticisms of Structuralism • By today’s scientific standards, the experimental methods used to study the structures of the mind were too subjective—the use of introspection led to a lack of reliability in results. • Other critics argue that structuralism was too concerned with internal behavior, which is not directly observable and cannot be accurately measured. Strengths of Structuralism • Structuralism is important because it is the first major school of thought in psychology. • Structuralism also influenced experimental
The original problem of induction concerns the justification of inductive inference. Hume maintains that it is the past regularity which establishes a habit that makes prediction happen. Goodman thinks Hume grasp the essence of the problem but also points out that not all regularity can form a habit to guide the prediction. The regularity which Hume refers to is only the generalization of evidence statement of something, not everything. For instance, a given piece of copper conducts electricity may convince people that other copper conduct electricity, however, the man in the room is the third son does not convince us that other men in the room are also the third son.
Many science writers tend to be boring and give straight facts and knowledge, but Gleiser speaks more simply and appeals to those who are not necessarily as educated. The Aristotelian proofs of logos, ethos, and pathos stand for logical, credible, and emotional appeals. They are a filter through which Gleiser’s arguments can be analyzed for effectiveness. Logos Logos, as previously stated, refers to an argument’s logical appeal. As an established member of the scientific community, it is only logical for Gleiser to utilize logos in his articles.
We must remember that at the time of Pascal’s writing, scepticism reigned due to the Scientific Revolution. What could the theist say to the ordinary sceptic? Suppose such a typical mind lacked both the gift of faith and the intelligence to prove God's existence; could there be a third ladder out of unbelief into salvation? Pascal’s wager is the lowest ladder, appealing to selfish instincts instead of high moral ones but it works because it gives no middle ground. Pascal theorises that agnosticism is impossible.
Total progress or ethical sidestepping? Indeed, ethics are deeply rooted in science,however it is a love hate relationship. For example some of the greatest scientific discoveries come from times of war. One derogatory nickname for Hereditarianism is Scientific Racism, this implies that there are no facts or evidence behind the wide general claims. Finch et al.
Thus socially plays a role in the development of science. 2. Popper, Kuhn and Latour’s opinions on Dawkins and Lennox’s personal convictions respectively. Poppers whole point of view is based on the truth behind any scientific findings, thus he would likely argue with Lennox that it is scientifically irrational for a virgin to conceive a child and for a human to turn water into wine. Keeping Poppers objective in mind, the lack of proof would probably discard any assumptions made by Lennox, since Popper was after proof and not necessarily only evidence.
According to the article Psychopathy: A Misunderstood Disorder, published in Science Daily, we don’t really know much about psychopathy at all! Instead of it being one disorder, it is actually many, that together form psychopathy, thus the countless studies that contradict each other. Lead author Jennifer Skeem, along with colleagues Devon Polaschek, Christopher Patrick and Scott Lilienfeld say that the seemingly small differences in psychopaths are often overlooked by policy-makers, when the differences can actually develop into serious problems down the road. Skeem wants to clarify the common misconception about how one becomes a psychopaths, if they are born that way or made that way, the common “nature v. nurture” dilemma. Research suggests
It does not follow our contemporary method, known as the Hypothetico-Deductive Method, which states that a new theory with unobservable entities can only be accepted if it has some confirmed novel predictions to support it. Ghostblasters simply tries to create a theory by claiming they are superior in the field of Geistology, without any confirmations, thus placing the theory in violation of the third law. Moreover, the second law deals with acceptance, stating that a theory can only be accepted if it is in accord with the method employed at the time. Since ectoplasm is an unobservable entity without any novel confirmed novel predictions, and the method used in attempt to accept this theory does not follow the afore mentioned Hypothetico-Deductive method, this theory cannot be accepted in accord with the second law. As we cannot accept Mr. Kneezer’s theory as scientific, it is consequently in violation of the first law of inertia, where an element of the mosaic remains in its state in the mosaic
People believe what they want and most of the time ones mind cannot be changed. There are a couple of arguments that philosophers have come up with. When one is looking at different general types of arguments for God’s existence there are 2. One is a posteriori which is physical evidence and the second is a priori which is purely logical (Furman). The question is did we come from a being that is more powerful than us named God or are we existing through science evolution?