Critical Thinking Post #8 - Final Course Reflection

        After this course, my thoughts on humanism, science and technology has changed. I view these topics differently now than before. It seems that in the beginning, I was wrong about the type of person I was. This course has helped me discover my real views on this. I guess that before I wasn't required to think about it and I didn't. Now that I learned more about each area, I feel comfortable enough to say that I am neither a humanist or a scientist. I am a combination of the two. 
         I didn't become any more or less of that person; I only realized my true self-identification in this area. There are many things I learned about these fields and all of them impacted what I associated myself with. However, these are things I already associated with myself, I just discovered it after this course. I am less optimistic about technology after this course, because we learned about negative impacts and I think that they outweigh the positive impacts. 
        This class has taught me a lot, whether using fiction or fact, about real life. We don't get to see what happens outside of our lives, but this course makes us step out and look from an observer's view. We have to realize that science and technology aren't always good and neither is humanism. We have to be critical of the world and question things that don't make sense to us. Otherwise, they never will.

Critical Thinking Post #7 - Critical Thinking About a Scientist’s Life and Work

       Rosalind Franklin was an amazing woman. Her intelligence lead her to discover one of the most important things in all time. DNA has always been seen as a good thing in the scientific community, and her help in the research on it has been one that lead to today's science. Nowadays, it has a great impact. Scientists are learning many new things about DNA, none of which would have been possible without Franklin's contribution. She was discredited in the beginning, of course, but the work she had done is still remembered and now her credit has been restored. It takes mistakes and mishaps to be successful at science - this is what Rosalind's story tells me. 
        Rosalind Franklin gave us all a sense of wonder. Growing up, I had a microscope and I used to look at a lot of things. Had it not been for Franklin, I would not have been able to learn about the DNA I was looking at in tiny living organisms. I would not have learnt about the structure of DNA throughout the years. The words "double helix" would not be used in my vocabulary. Her work bridged science and the humanities. It is a core concept of what it really means to be human - and that is something that everyone wanted to understand.
        A bad thing that can come from her research is creation of artificial and potentially harmful life forms. For the first time in history, we are becoming able to generate different base pairs in DNA. This is another big step that would not be possible if not for Franklin's research. This can be harmful if the life created becomes a plague, or if it feeds on different species that can become extinct from this creature and the other species that thrived without this creature. However, this research can also be used for good in the future. It may help us discover new things, or possible create beneficial forms of life.

Critical Thinking Post #6 - Sharing and Reflecting on Two Research Sources

        The topic for my research paper is Altruism and the Selfish gene. More specifically, I am writing that Roger Mitchell's film adaptation of Ian McEwan's Enduring Love argues for altruism rather than selfish genes. 
        Two sources that I found were as listed below.

Barash, David P. "Are We Selfish Altruists? Group-Oriented Individualists? (Or What?)." Natural Selections: Selfish Altruists, Honest Liars, and Other Realities of Evolution. New York: Bellevue Literary, 2008. 112-14. Print.

Ruse, Michael. "Review of Ian McEwan's Enduring Love." Metanexus 1 Aug. 1999. Web. 13 May 2014.

        The first source is a chapter from a book. I found this source in the library. I was looking up sources online and came across the book when searching for selfish genes and altruism. This source provides a lot of information on the selfish gene and altruism, which ways and when they both appear,  why they occur... It gives all of the scientific evidence and research behind the concepts. The author is not biased toward one part of the conflict, but supports both in his writing. This source matches my research paper perfectly because I needed evidence of how people act and why they act that way in order to compare that information to the way people behaved throughout the film Enduring Love and McEwan's story. 

        The second source is a review of the film. It has information about the characters, plot, altruism throughout the film and all of that good stuff involving the details of the movie and how altruism is seen. This source was found on the internet via Google Scholar. It provides perfect information based on the movie and includes altruism as a theme of the movie. It shows mostly stuff from the film, which can go perfect with details that I found in the scientific sources. It goes well with my paper because it gives me another perspective to see the movie from and to compare my own thoughts with.

Critical Thinking Post #5 - The Promise and Peril of Robots in Film, TV and Real Life: Friends or Foes?

        For this blog assignment, the first video I chose to write about was “The Touch Bionics i-Limb Hand. REMARKABLE!.” This video is interesting, because it shows both the benefits and flaws of robots. It shows that the robot is being used for good, however there are some things it is incapable of doing (ie. moving the hand to the mouth; when attempted, it wiggles around trying to bring a drink to the mouth). It is a beneficial technology, overall. It is a good way to look forward to robotics in our future, because they can help people with missing limbs possess them once again, and in the near future these limbs will be perfected to work as regularly as the real thing. However, the fact that the robot doesn't have the capability to listen to per for certain commands worries me. When you look at a robot that may be massed produced, you don't want to see that they are disobedient and this may bring out fear in some people. 

        Another clip shows more direct disobedience by a robot named HAL. The clip, named “Hal wont Open the Pod Bay Door,” is about a robot who does not listen to, and actually goes against, what man is telling the robot to do. In doing this, he shows not only that he is capable of being disobedient, but that he is against the intentions of the humans. It is import ant to note that this is fiction, however possible it does seem. This film shows us the possibility of betrayal by robots, with many films on its side. However, unlike the arm-bot, HAL is artificial intelligence. There is a difference between the two, because HAL has the capability to think for itself, whereas the arm does not. 

        Looking at these two clips has made me realize that while some people may still fear robots, we are growing more towards a future involving such technology. Most people are used to having a ‘robot' in their pockets nowadays (think Siri, Galaxy on Androids). We are rapidly looking towards a future with robots because they are useful to us. Perhaps we don’t fully understand the technology well enough to risk our lives in being hopeful in technology. With this view, though, we can only be sure of one thing: Humans and robots will coexist. The only question is which will be the master of which.

Critical Thinking Post #4 - Midterm Review

            From reading the two texts “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins and “The Selfless Gene” by Olivia Judson, I do not agree that Darwinism challenges the idea that human nature is altruistic most of the time. Both texts show different, but equally important, evidence for their arguments. Dawkins shows us that it is possible that we, as humans, are only altruistic towards relatives who can pass on our genes. Judson shows us that we are also altruistic towards strangers and have evolved that way for survival. It is important to see that both of these ideas are possible and can coexist.

            In “The Selfish Gene,” Dawkins writes, “[A] gene might be able to assist replicas of itself that are sitting in other bodies. If so, this would appear as individual altruism, but it would be brought about by gene selfishness” (Dawkins 179). By saying this, Dawkins means that we are only being helpful or self-sacrificing to save others that are related to us and/or have the same genes. To say this would imply that our sole purpose in life would be to save our own genes from dying out. However, this is not at all what the reality is. It is much more complex. This may be an aspect of the situation, though. Humans do, by nature, try to help family members more than they do try to help non-relatives. This idea that Dawkins is referring to challenges our view that humans are altruistic by nature, because it says that we are conditionally altruistic. However, it does not mean that this is the role we are destined to play.

            A perfect example of this is shown when Oliva Judson writes, “Humans often risk their lives for strangers…or for people they know but are not related to” (Judson 191). By stating this, Judson is saying that we are altruistic not only to relatives, but to others as well. This implies that we do not have selfish genes and are actually caring toward other people by nature. If this were entirely true, then there would be no difference in our minds between a sibling and a stranger. However, it can be partially true. We, as humans, tend to care for some strangers. Judso’s idea goes against our biological nature, Darwinism and Dawkins ideas. To say that there is no biological aspect of the situation would mean that we are free to pick and choose who we care for enough to risk our own lives for. This is not the case. We can not refuse to allow our child to survive something that we can die for instead. Likewise, most of us would not jump in front of a train to save a stranger from being hit.

            Judson also writes, “The evolution of social living requires limiting aggression so that neighbors can tolerate each other” (Judson 193).By saying this, Judson is saying that, as a species, we can not exist if we are aggressive toward one another. There are, however, acts of aggression that humans commit toward one another. We are, for the most part, altruistic toward each other. This idea shows us that Judson is indeed correct that we must ‘tolerate’ each other to survive. Though, it does also mean that we are this way toward each other because of our social way of living. This idea can imply that we are genetically pre-programmed to help other members of our species. Saying this would not specify that it is impossible to be both altruistic towards our own genes and helpful to other members of our species.

            In fact, the reason we are altruistic to certain strangers may even be that they contain a gene that we are trying to aid in survival. On the other hand, we may be psychologically obligated to help a stranger because we know we will feel guilty if we don’t, sometimes so much that tis can cause stress in our bodies and stress can create problems such as gene mutations. Either of these are possible, and both can be the case. In order to go against either side of the argument, that biologically we are altruistic or that we are not, we would need evidence that both cases could not coincide with each other, which doesn’t seem very plausible.

            In conclusion, humans are conscious beings, and we sometimes make choices that may or may not benefit someone in need. We are able to choose whether or not we are altruistic toward someone who is not related to us. However, this choice is more difficult when we are asked to be altruistic toward a relative, because we feel obligated. Perhaps we are able to choose for strangers, but it is necessary for us to save our own genes. Whatever the case may be, it is evident that humans are both altruistic toward family and sometimes altruistic toward strangers.

Critical Thinking Post # 3- Research Paper Topic Brainstorming

        Originally, my topic was to relate the two texts, "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins and "The Selfless Gene" by Olivia Judson. However, this topic was way too broad. I needed to narrow it down. All of the topics seemed OK to me, but nothing really stuck out to me. I thought that this was going to be another boring research paper I had to write, like in all of my other classes. After getting my topic-write-up back, I actually noticed there was a topic that was interesting to me. I didn't see the second ready-made topic until after submitting my topic, which was really a much better topic and I didn't have to figure it out on my own. It is the only topic that I was leaning towards from the beginning. Most of the other topics are not really in my area of interest.
        Before learning of this ready-made topic, I did consider other topics, because I didn't think I had a choice. I was considering the first ready-made topic, which was about the World's fair, Futurama and global warming. I thought that the topic was a little interesting, but after reading the second topic, I realized that the first one seemed a lot more boring to me. It was a choice that would decide the outcome of my paper. If I chose the first topic, it would be a boring paper, and if I chose the second, well, at least I'd have a chance!
        The second topic appeals to me because it is not about technology, but about humanism and biology, which are more interesting to me. I really like the texts and films related to this topic, so it is exciting for me to do the research. If I had chosen the other topic, I'd have a much harder time getting into the paper, and would probably end up with a really poorly written one. That's why my topic is the second ready-made one, "Is Altruism Possible Under Darwin [and Evolutionary Psychology]? Testing Altruism Out in Ian McEwans Enduring Love (novel or film)."

Critical Thinking Post #2 - Popular Science Today (COSMOS!)

    The tone of the new series "Cosmos" is one full of excitement and wonder towards science. This show doesn't make me feel any less important as a human being, but rather more interested when learning that we are one with life and how many things had to occur before it was possible for us to even exist. It makes me more aware of the scientific aspect of life and the universe. Some people may feel small because of how big the universe is, but it makes me feel more complete.

    The show, to me, doesn't "argue" for the value of humanity, but aims to push our minds towards a more realistic, less "human-as-the-center-of-creation" mindset. However, some can say that the show does, in a way, show humanism behind the main idea, because the show is from our perspective. We are the only life forms that we know of that can and do make these discoveries, understand them and interpret what they mean both in relation to us and not.

    I don't think that Americans would necessarily like a scientific show like the cosmos. For the most part, we should like it. The 30% of Americans who don't believe in the Theory of Evolution and others like them wouldn't like this type of show, however. There were even religious people creating tweets and other social media posts about the show. They said things like "Nice try, Cosmos" and "The truth is in the bible. Those who are not stubborn and consider other views besides their own may find the show appealing. The show explains science in a way that is easy and graphic. You are drawn in by the graphic effects and language used. There are many imagery effects including traveling through the Universe and beyond. There are really no scientific words used in the show, but simple words to describe complex phenomenon. Comparisons are also used to show a scale that regular people (Non-Scientists) are able to understand. This would be appealing to Americans, because, for the most part, we like simplicity and prefer it to learning the complex concepts with without simplification.

    I, personally, didn't learn much from the show. However, if I had watched it a month earlier, before taking up biology class in college, I would have learned quite a lot. I didn't quite know much about the Theory of Evolution, except simple ideas about it. I didn't know what it was in depth. The show does a good job to show how it happened, and it really shows most of its concepts in this simple manner. The visual effects really help to recognize what actually went on. The show also helps me review my biology lessons, which is always a plus!

Critical Thinking Post #1 - Introduction/Welcome.

Who am I? 

My name is Thomas Brush. I am majoring in Deaf Studies at LaGuardia CC, but I plan to major in English when I transfer to a "senior college." My plans after I graduate from a bachelor's program include applying to and volunteering for the Peace Corps. I want to go to Africa to help where I can, and then come back to help in-need people in the USA. I will be majoring in English because I love to write fiction and poetry, and it is one of my talents. However, I have many other interests, so it would be really hard to choose my dream career if not in English/Writing. I am also a linguaphile, someone who loves languages and words. Currently, I am only fluent in English. I am learning Spanish on my own and American Sign Language at LaGuardia. I have a whole list of other languages that I plan on learning. The next language I want to learn is Arabic, and I've already learned the alphabet.

Science or Humanities?

I find science very interesting. However, I am more a fan of humanities. My views have changed on this topic over the years. I used to imagine myself as a scientist, but now see myself as a writer. My view of technology is partially positive and partially negative... I think that most of US approve technology without thinking about whether this technology is really beneficial or a temporary fix... Science is great, don't get me wrong, but technology might not be as great as we (society) make it seem. At least, not all of it. There are some aspects of technology that are great and interesting, but there are others that I don't approve of. For example, a technological "advance" that people have found interest in today is the sign language translation glove. This technology and a lot of other technologies are good only on one side. You can understand the person signing, but the gloves can not arrange your hands to sign what you want to say to the person using sign language. These technologies also eliminate the need for Americans and other native speakers of English to learn more than one language, which I feel is essential factor to build relationships with people from different cultures. Even if these people know and understand English, it is a one sided learning process and the relationship would be weaker than if both knew the language of each other. Also, learning more than one language is beneficial to the mind of the bi+linguals, which these technologies do not promote. There are many more situations and examples, but that is what the point of this class is, so we'll see if they will be discussed in a later post! 

Welcome to my blog!