On science and uncertainty

Should science be slowed down by the law to regulate the enterprise more tightly to limit what we humans should know or not? Is there a genuine apprehension that science might be taking the meaning out of life? In this blog I will be extending, challenging and connecting what knowledge I hold with the essay from Discover, by Lewis Thomas

Science is something that cannot be stopped even if it becomes illegal. The human race is one that likes to discover and try reach to the end of things, as science is a topic that allows the human mind to express themselves whether theoretically or practically. Science is not only used be doctors to find cures for a sickness that has physically replicated itself over time however it also exaggerates on the topics of LIFE, not only does science discover the new areas of our body and test them to a certain extent but it also studies the things we are able to do and to the extent that we are able to reach to with the help of scientific studies.

What challenges me in the article that we have read is why would Lewis Thomas ever take into consideration that science should be banned. This not only stops the discovery of new things in life but it also, limits the depths in which we are able to reach as human beings. It stated that we should be worried about traffic on Mars however I dont think that this is the top priority for us humans right now. Instead I beleive that we should be allowed to reach the limits and expand or develop our knoweldge that we currently hold between the globe.

Indigenous Knowledge Systems

In class we learnt about indigenous knowledge systems which are basic traditions that people used to use ages ago, or still do. My indigenous system is about local communities in Africa, it goes like this :

Local communities and farmers in Africa have developed intricate systems of gathering, predicting, interpreting and decision-making in relation to weather. A study in Nigeria, for example, shows that farmers are able to use knowledge of weather systems such as rainfall, thunderstorms, windstorms, and sunshine to prepare for future weather. Indigenous methods of weather forecasting are known to complement farmers’ planning activities in Nigeria. A similar study in Burkina Faso showed that farmers’ forecasting knowledge encompasses shared and selective experiences. 

Elderly male farmers formulate hypotheses about seasonal rainfall by observing natural phenomena, while cultural and ritual specialists draw predictions from divination, visions or dreams. The most widely relied-upon indicators are the timing, intensity and duration of cold temperatures during the early part of the dry season. Other forecasting indicators include the timing of fruiting by certain local trees, the water level in streams and ponds, the nesting behaviour of small quail-like birds, and insect behaviour in rubbish heaps outside compound walls.

How reliable are past traditional ways  in preserving the hypothesis about natural

phenomena. 

Is History A Science? O.o

We humans tend to define History as, "the study of past events, particularly in human affairs." However Science tends to be defined as, "Knowledge about or the study of the natural world based on facts learned through observations and experiments." Science unlike history can be predicted on the whole however, who are we to predict what will happen in the next 2minutes and if it goes down in the historians book? I feel like scientists have the edge over the historians, as the historians are always dealing with information that could be incomplete, as we loose a lot of information about the history every minute that passes from the incident itself.
As history rotates and is energised around the evidence methods like books, internet, etc, this show the truth or sometimes only half the truth. However science which is straightforward can be measured   but history cannot. You can never know for sure if a event actually happened or is true until you experience it FIRST hand, and that is hard considering that the event has already passed. But in history everything can be re evaluated and analysed to figure out what the real story is! In conclusion I believe that science can be history, but history cannot be a science, as a great historian once said,
"History is written by the victors." Winstone Churchill

Moral Dilemma

Moral Dilemma is a situation that requires a choice between "justice" or "empathy"which are two equal alternatives. A moral dilemma can therefore be defines as a situation that will often involve and apparent mental conflict in which each possible course of action will breach some binding moral principle.
There is a difference between "justice" or "empathy", justice is the process or result of using laws fairly to judge and punish people who have committed crimes. However empathy is the ability to understand and share feelings of one and another.

I chose this Dilemma as I have been in the steps of this comic, where I either go with my intuition and choose to use empathy, and feel bad because I haven't done the work , or to be fair and do the right thing which does not include plagiarism. Many problems in the world are a result of people paying too much attention to their desires rather than to other factors that actually affect their future, and although I was using empathy instead of justice I was wrong to do so, because I didn't think about the outside factors that could actually affect me or others around me.

• Ethics of justice
• Denotolgy
• Kantanianism

All the words listed are acts of duty, however the next words are consequences for the greater good:

• Utilitarianism 
• consequentialism 

Using the two different sets of words can you identify what I used for my moral dilemma? 

Mark Twain once said,
          "Make it a point to do something everyday that you don't want to"
You should try this as it helps in making decisions in future moral dilemma's.

Check this link for many Moral Dilemma's that happen around the world.
http://psychopixi.com/misc/25-moral-dilemmas/

Is seeing believing?

Although everyone has their own opinion of this matter, what I think of this matter is not that relevant at the moment because everyone interprets the information they receive differently depending on past experiences that the brain might have gone through. For example, in our daily lives we study a lot of things, whether at school, at work or home, but the things we study about are things that we have not seen before and may not see them ever. We hear of so many people and so many things but "who are we to say that they are not real?" The question that comes to my head after thinking of the existence of things that I have never seen or experienced is, "should I believe only what I see?"

You don't have to see something to believe it, although there are many things in this world that we cannot touch, feel, see or hear, but "does this mean we shouldn't believe that they exist?" For example, many people believe in Ghosts, there is no proof that they exist and I personally don't believe in them, however some people have seen them, should we believe what they have seen, or should we go with our instincts and believe in only what we have seen?

Illusions play a trick on our minds, they basically confuse our brain. They make us believe in what we see, but when we find the solution somehow we seem to change the way we see the illusion as a whole. Take this example,

Try to say the colour of each word!

In the first word, although our mind sees the word PURPLE we see RED, our brain responds to previous encounters with the colour, it memorises the colour and interprets it where it can find a similar match.

In conclusion believing should only come from intuition, for a sense of right and wrong comes from God himself. Seeing is not believing, as so everything that exists usually tends to not be seen and everything that cannot be seen tends to exist apart from in our minds.

Word Count 351.

Language.

Firstly what is language?
       "The free dictionary" defines language as, "Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols."
Firstly we have to distinguish the difference between, "communication" and "language". Language falls under communication as it is like a type of communication with other humans.

The way we use language, allows us to understand the way we communicate very differently, whether it is what the sender is trying to say or not. The way the current world uses language confuses some people, as there are many ways of communicating, for example:

1. Verbal communication, when you are talking to someone or people in person.

2.Written communication, emails, reports etc

3.Visual communication, television and video clips.

4. Sign language communication, used by people who are unable to communicate naturally.

5. Non-Verbal communication, non physical communication.

       There are very many other ways.

There are 4 ways of receiving language as Shulz Von Thun said,

 Self revelation: MUM:What a chaos! You're a slob! How can you live in such a mess!

                                SON:  Did you have a bad day Mum? 

 Factual Information: When facts are communicated to others.

 Relationship: expresses how the sender gets along with the receiver and what he thinks about him.

 Appeal: Saying or understanding something that is said "indirectly" 
    
       Depending on were and how we use language we can understand it differently. The word 'shit' can be used negatively, when cursing at someone or when something has gone wrong. But however its true meaning is 'FECES'. What is the difference between saying 'feces' and 'shit'? There is no difference however the way we interpret words is different around the world and this can cause problems to some people. 

1984 By George Orwell.

 Question: Why is the ruthless totalitarian regime, described in Orwell’s novel purging Oldspeak and imposing Newspeak? What assumptions are being made about the relationship between language and thought?

       The book 1984, by George Orwell, chapter 5 is telling 'us' the readers how the totalitarian regime is changing the words that are old in the old speak and puts in the new words into the newspeak, trying to make the language simpler and easier for one to speak. The totalitarian regime wants to make all humans to the use the newspeak as they believed that it would benefit them in the long term, by allowing ones vocabulary and thought to exceed what is expected. Words like synonyms and antonyms have been removed from this language as the author thought that the less word in a language the less people had to think and the less people had to think the less people were stressed and tensed.