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!