http://www.ted.com/talks/laura_snyder_the_philosophical_breakfast_club?language=en
Answer 1 or 2 of the following. Don't repeat what your classmates have already posted.
What do we mean by empirical science, as opposed to armchair natural philosophy?
The Philosophical Breakfast Club claimed that science should be performed for the public good rather than private gain. Do you agree? Why?
Do you think that Americans are scientifically illiterate? Are you? Is it bad to be scientifically illiterate? Why or why not?
During the video, I was shocked to here that as a country we are scientifically illiterate. I can recall in grade school having science courses that lightly touched in different subject areas (like dinosaurs or prehistoric era, ancient world, ect). I remember in high school it was mandatory that every student take science course, you could choose the course as well. With the education I have received thus far in life, I don't know how people can or are scientifically illiterate. I think science is an important subject matter to know and be able to recall brief tidbits if needed. During the video, I recall one of the questions that they asked adults was "did humans and dinosaurs ever walk the earth together?" Or went something along those lines and the fact that some adults can't answer that question appropriately is sad. I get that this summer Jurassic World came out but that is no way realistic to our human history.
ReplyDeleteI agree that is at times hard to believe that people are scientific illiterate. Science is important even if doesn't directly affect your everyday life.
DeleteI believe that the main reason that we are scientifically illiterate as a society is solely due to the fact that people do not pay attention to the information that is presented before them in school. In my high school I remember sleeping through my freshman science class and getting an A because the information was all review from previous years. On the other hand there were the students who were completely lost because they never paid attention in any of their previous science class because it wasn't cool to like science.
DeleteI believe we are scientifically illiterate. I believe this because for me when I am not in a science class or something. I think nothing of science. I know it is bad but I just have not been interested enough to expand my education, unless I have to.
DeleteI understand that some people find science uninteresting, but there are so many different kinds of science courses that people can take. I hated science until I started taking anatomy classes and honestly, if I hadn't taken that class, I wouldn't have a clue what to do with the rest of my life. So basically, take courses that you've never studied before, read books without even knowing the title, don't be afraid to take your car on a road trip and get lost. Because after you finish the classes, books, and adventures, you can't say you didn't learn something.
DeleteI agree with OT here because I also am not one to go home at night and check out what is new in the science world today. But it is a field that I should probably try to expand my knowledge on because while I am in class I like to discuss the different topics but out of class it seems to never cross my mind.
DeletePeople are scientifically illiterate because they take no interest in it. The same people that thought dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans might be dumbfounded that I know nothing about whats going on in Justin Biebers life currently. Scientific illiteracy doesn't come from a lack of education but a lack of interest and most people are distracted/interested by different subjects other than science. Science has almost been eliminated from pop culture which deters some people from it. I think science should be held in high importance in society and maybe people would start taking interest.
DeleteI was interested in the discussion about empirical studies and armchair philosophers. Interestingly a variation of this was brought up in my psychology class. Armchair philosophers prefer to think about the reasoning between the particular areas of science Whereas Empirical science is the actual testing of the scientific theory by conducting experiments. In a certain way both o these are related because with the work of armchair philosophers there would be no theory of explanation for the scientist to proof by experimentation. I was also intrigued by the point made about the use of science for the public good. I absolutely agree that science should used for the good of the people. The greatest supporting example of this is in the area of medicine and medical research. For example say a new breakthrough were to be found in the area of cancer research, we would want that information freely shared not only for the benefit of the public but for the benefit of science itself as it may lead to other ground breaking discoveries.
ReplyDeleteWe can define illiteracy in many ways. People often refer to it as being unable to read or write. However upon googling the word, another definition of illiterate is as follows, uncultured or poorly educated. With that being said, I can make a strong argument that many people are scientifically illiterate. Personally, with my accounting background, I would consider myself to be scientifically illiterate. Does this mean I will be illiterate all of my life? No. I just choose to accept the facts as they are presented to me. For instance, if a doctor prescribes medicine to me I'm going to take it. I'm not going to go behind his back and prescribe myself medicine as I'm illiterate in the medical field. This idea works the same if he were to present an accounting question to me. I would expect him to take my advice and accept it for what it is, as I'd assume he is illiterate in the accounting profession. Do I believe it's bad if someone is illiterate in different fields or professions? No, I believe everyone chooses to become literate in the profession/field that interests them.
ReplyDeleteFor such specialized fields you have a valid point but for simple history questions that we were all exposed to in high school and even middle school there is very little excuse to be so ignorant. To me someone not knowing that people and dinosaurs didn't live in the same time period is like someone not knowing how to do simple multiplication. We were all taught the information in school it is just whether the person took it upon themselves to absorb the information as it was presented to them.
DeleteI agree with your point of view. If we force ourselves to become knowledgeable in all subjects, then we would become bored with the less interesting subjects and just focus on the ones we are interested in anyway. Of course I believe that we should still continue to expose ourselves to a wide variety of subjects so that we are able to make educated decisions about the disciplines we enjoy.
DeleteI think this statement proves true to all fields of study as well! Many are not literate in many aspects of art for example but if they take the time to study and learn from others who are literate in those fields we can become more educated on things and discussions that occur in our everyday lives. I also think TMC allows us to be more literate in other subjects because of the liberal arts background!
DeleteI believe that science should be performed for public good. science is used in everything we do, even if we don't realize it. With the public understanding how experiments are done this can increase our knowledge of the science world. if the public is exposed to more science, this may increase the chance of the public liking it and trying to find out more answers to a certain experiment. Also, people can perform more experiments on other hypothesis and find out new answers to our world.
ReplyDeleteI decided to answer the question about empirical science and what makes the armchair natural philosopher different. Empirical science is the actual testing of theories by doing experiments. Also is science based on experiences and is science involving tangible, measurable results. Armchair natural philosopher is more about the reasoning of experiments and theories. These two are related because if we didn't have armchair philosophers then there would be no theories for the scientists to go out and test and prove.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that science should be used for the public good because it's a something that can benefit everyone. Since it is naturally occurring, it's wrong for people to use it to benefit them personally.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you! Everyone should be up to date with all new discoveries so that it will be benefit everyone.
DeleteCouldn't agree more with you boys. Everybody needs to be more knowledgable on the sciences of today's society and use them to make our world a better place!
DeleteI believe that science should be used for the public good. Just by keeping up with some of the advancements in medical science, I have seen the impact that these discoveries make on people's lives when they are able to overcome an illness or even just improve their quality of life. Just Imagine we wouldn't have aspirin if Hippocrates didn't share his discovery of salicin from the bark of willow trees. If Dr. Jonas Salk hadn't spent his days creating his famous vaccine, polio might be more common than it is today. If these scientists had kept their discoveries to themselves, humans might not exist in today's world.
ReplyDeleteI believe that science should be used for the public good instead of private gain as the Philosophical Breakfast Club does. Reason being is that if scientist don't share what they are discovering with the public, it could potentially hurt society. Some scientist could be wasting their time rediscovering what another scientist already has instead of extending that research to discover something new, all because they didn't share it with the public. In the past scientist learned, and help test their theories by help of past scientists discoveries. Also if it does effect and or benefit everyone in society they should have the right to know.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you have said. I think it is very important for scientist to share their discoveries with one another. If they do not share the information discovered then you could have multiple scientist testing the same thing when they all could be testing something different in order to explore more discoveries. I also think it is important for scientist to share their information with one another when it comes to medicine. Without scientist and doctors figuring out different medication that the public needs we would all be in a world of hurt. Sharing information and working together scientist can achieve more.
DeleteI like what you said. If it can benefit everything they should have the right to know. Is keeping knowledge from the public ethically wrong especially if it's for the greater good? You made a good point.
DeleteEmpirical science is the study of the natural world and armchair philosophy is more about thinking then actually testing. The philosophical breakfast club would consult with each other on how to scientifically make the world better. My question is what other scientific background did those men have? Were they just a group of smart friends that wanted to make the scientific world better? Maybe it's hard for people to want to make scientific advances for the greater good when a random persons opinion would be shot down. They could be the smartest person in the world but without any scientific background such as a science degree, they're opinion and ideas are basically nothing. Once someone has dedicated their life to a scientific field they're looking to gain something privately while helping the greater good as well. Society has changed and so has people's outlook on science and what they can do to advance it.
ReplyDeleteI do think that many people are scientifically illiterate; however, I was shocked to hear the statistics on the subject given in the video. I think that this is partially do to a necessity to know the knowledge. While it should be common knowledge that humans and dinosaurs do not live in the same era, it does not really matter if you know this information or not. (Unless the worry of being eaten by one is having an effect on your daily activities.) In terms of the grading criteria for the general population I would consider myself to be scientifically literate due to my educational background in high school and college. I think it really depends on the area of science when determining if being scientifically illiterate is really that bad. While everyone should have a basic understanding of science I do not think that knowing things like 71% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water is really that important.
ReplyDelete• I do not think that it is a bad thing to use science for person gain. I say this because no matter what, eventually the concepts that are discovered will be employed to make some form of profit. An example would be Babbage’s early computer. I also think that while there are many scientists out there who are in it simply for discovery, there are also many other people that could have a positive influence on science if personal gain was thrown into the equation. People such as entrepreneurs and financers in the private sector can offer funding that can drastically decrease the wait time for scientific breakthroughs. In addition, personal profit can be a great motivator in any medium for attaining excellence.