Blog Post #8: Natural Sciences and Personal Knowledge

1. What impact have the natural sciences had on the way you understand yourself? 
2. How has technology affected the form and content of your personal knowledge? 
3. How has your study of your group 4 subject affected the knowledge you employ in your day-to- day dealings with the world?

The natural sciences have helped me build an understanding of myself and my life in many different ways. Over the years learning biology has aided in my comprehension of my physical self which has allowed me to adapt certain forms of my lifestyle to fit the human biology and more specifically my body. This basis of knowledge has to lead to certain actions that might take place in response to some things due to the knowledge that I hold. My education in biology allows me to understand the fundamentals of what my body needs to grow and be well so I have shaped my life around that so I can be physically well which helps in being mentally well and fit to undergo tasks. A mixture of biology, chemistry and physics has extended my assessment of dangerous situation caused by external factors which heighten my fight or flight reflexes in certain fields. Constant developments within these fields change my way of life in either small ways or big ones as the more you understand then the more you can change or manipulate something. 

Technology, in my opinion, has had the biggest impact on our personal knowledge within our lives. It is such a massive platform which can easily mould or influence your personal knowledge based on the things you are exposed to or the things you use. Social media or internet platforms have the ability to completely form your personal knowledge due to the websites you join, the articles you read or the opinions you are exposed to. With its connective behaviour, it allows people to grow perspectives and become extremely open-minded but due to its variety, there is the possibility of the opposite to occur. It is versatile allowing the user to observe what they want while publishing what they want, this publishing can be a record of your growth of personal knowledge while shape this knowledge as well. Your publishing is your personal knowledge and getting it our there may cause it to change or for it to be reformed by the public response. 

Studying group 4 has made me assess thing differently, it has extended the importance that correlation does not equal causations. The Paradigm reading was the most important to me as it showed me how our societal or scientific paradigms allow us the question or dismiss ideas that are false but also have the ability to restrict our knowledge. If something goes against the paradigm of our society we tend to immediately think it is wrong or criticise which could be dangerous or ignorant when developing. 

Blog Post #7:The Language of Science

20/2/2017

What are the arguments that each side makes?
Philip Ball's article "A metaphor too far" discusses how the use of metaphors in the scientific field may distort the values and contextual aspects of science. Their open-ended nature will only cause more confusion when studying the big complex topics which will make it harder to further develop scientific ideas. He uses Thibodeau's and Boroditsky's Stanford study as an example, with participants changing their answers of how crime should be dealt with in correlation to the metaphor used. Crime being described as a wild beast produced more cynical answers associated with the caging and killing of it, however, when it was described as a virus, participants leant towards more open-ended understanding and problem-solving tactics. He used this to build his own point that metaphors may create confusion leading people down the wrong path and give them the wrong ideas which will lead to misconclusions.

Caleb A.Scharf discussed the opposite side of this case in " In Defense of Metaphors In Science Writing". He discussed how metaphors may be used to make concepts more understandable with the simplifying and personalisation of the ideas at hand. These personalizations would allow people to be more incised by the subject as well as being able to work through it due to the personalizations made. It is also mentioned how the disputes of metaphors in science could just be caused by scientists wanting to stay to the facts since that is what they are more comfortable with and accustomed to.

What factors influence the language choices of writers of science?
From reading these two articles, I think the author's personal ideas, opinions and targeted audience greatly impact the form of writing they produce. Some scientific writers may write with metaphors to give the audience a better understanding or personal linkage in order to help them gain the concepts or expand on the concepts. This form of writing allows for scientists and normal people to read it and form opinions and perspectives about the topic at hand. Writing with no metaphors expects the readers to understand what they are discussing purely from facts presented, they expect the audience the form opinions based on fact which could be more a scientific base. This is supported by Scharf discussing how fellow scientists thought it was unnecessary or informal to put these concepts in metaphorical form, urging him to go back the  factual presentations they are used to. 

Blog Post #6: Ethical Limitations of Science

To what extent should scientific knowledge be open to the public? 

This is a very difficult question to answer as there tend to be two sides to each leaf with this have the many reasons scientists should reveal information and other reasons which dictate why it should be kept a secret. Science is a field dedicated to exploration and investigating the unknown which can lead to a variety of new information and possible benefits. Scientists are constantly learning from old research or current research to hypothesise new ideas or develop old ones. With this mindset, it seems logical to share as much information as you can with the hope of further evolving our society in order for us to become the superior race. 

Many scientists agree with the notion as a study published in the international journal PLOS expressed how modern scientists use social media as a form of communication with fellow peers. "Led by Kimberley Collins, Dr Jenny Rock of New Zealand’s University of Otago and David Shiffman of the University of Miami, it surveyed 587 scientists from a range of academic disciplines."(http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/releases/otago624116.html). A majority of the science population believed that social media has a lot of advantages which could the scientific field. They even appreciate forms of social media like twitter as it allows them to share their findings, results or information with fellow scientists and the population. This openness allows a for a dialect to easily be created and with multiple minds working together or even discussing results there is room for growth. All these compelling points make it seem like an easy choice but there are a lot of implications that may take place if all scientific knowledge is open to the public. 

Humans are driven in science by curiosity which can be driven by logic, reason, imagination and emotion. Scientists do a lot of procedures to acquire their data which may conflict with the public's own morals. Animal testing has a lot of mixed signals from the public with some supporting it and some being against it, scientists use animal testing to avoid risking human lives but they do affect the creatures life. We only know some of the tests going on and there has been a lot of laws and regulations set into place to avoid the harm of animals as much as we can. These precautions were due to the public's morals criticising scientist's experimentation methods but what if these extreme measures lead to the cure for cancer? If 1,000 rats could die to save thousands and thousands of humans then would it be morally correct for scientists to test on them? Well, the real questions are if the public knew of this choice would they even be able to decide as we are very torn as human beings due to our emotion and logic based on our mental differences.

Let's take another point, humans naturally can panic and if governments were working on dangerous materials for radioactive warfare would the public have ethe right to know? Well, if they did then there is a possibility they would get support as it may defend their nation in the future or even get help from public scientists. However, this shared information may lead to the public's panic leading to revolutions or other political battles. This act of defence may even lead to other countries to panic in fear of what this product could lead to when the original country simply wants protection. The public knowledge would cause too much controversy that may stop they research of this radioactive warfare or aid it. 

Humans are extremely unpredictable with their responses caused by emotion which may cloud their judgement so you might think it would be better to not release information thepublic. However, this emotion and logic are what dictates fear and morality which prevents the scientists from going too far with their technology. It mainly just depends on what is being released and what kind of research is being conducted.