Blog #24

            This section of Pennock’s book provokes interesting discussion as he dives into the topic of science and philosophy once again, but specifies this topic further down into the relationship between science and religion. Personally I found this section fascinating, as I have always been interested in the rather awkward coexistence between these two domains. Previously in this course, we have dived into the topic of science and philosophy, and since then we have highlighted the importance of the coexistence of these two fields. However, this chapter of Pennock’s book is of particular interest as it depicts a side full of conflict between science and philosophical schools of thought.

            Notably, Pennock depicts the conflict between science and religion via historical events, one of them being the story of Galileo’s discovery/theory of a heliocentric universe, which starkly contrasted Christian teachings of a geocentric universe. In going against religious thought, Galileo was criticized and eventually tried for his “crime” and was found guilty of heresy even though he presented this thought using empirical evidence. This example really shows the reader that this conflict has recurred throughout history on multiple occasions, and is even a debated topic even now.

            This portion of the chapter resonated something with me personally as an aspiring health professional. Within this environment, specifically in the close-knit community of Lyman Briggs College, we have been trained to adapt certain values, regardless of our personal views on the topic. Personally, I am indeed religious, but entering Lyman Briggs, my fellow peers and I have been trained to understand that evolution is a known event. If on an exam, there was a question regarding evolution, as science majors, we were required to answer the question “correctly” meaning that evolution has occurred, regardless of religious viewpoints. In general, anything in my science classes have been distanced from any sort of philosophical thought, which has allowed us to grow and flourish in one domain, but I believe that scientific classes should always incorporate philosophical schools of thought into their topics to add dimension to the concept at hand.

It is a common stereotype within the scientific community that “true” scientists must be atheists in order to achieve credibility, however, I believe that philosophical religious thought should be considered when approaching a scientific topic, as religion brings up many ethical issues at hand. One example of this is genetic engineering of organisms, where scientists are generally eager to pursue this new tool, but due to religious beliefs, many within and beyond the scientific community remain that skepticism that is vital when considering the use and application of a potentially dangerous tool.

Religion is a sensitive subject within the scientific realm, as it is often approached tentatively with equal amounts of caution and skepticism. This begs the question; to what extent should science and philosophy remain intertwined? If religion is mixed in with empirical evidence, will that hinder or advance scientific development?

Blog #23

LB 492 – Blog #23 – Melody Marzjarani

This passage outline is particularly unique as the material is presented to the reader in the form of an interview with a scientist. Within this discussion, it is significant to note that the interviewer targeted the application and importance of scientific virtues within the field, which is significant to highlight as this script sums up the entire purpose of our course. First and foremost, having this type of discussion is extremely valuable on both ends as it allows the outsider to peer into the very foundation that makes up the field; on the other end of the spectrum, this conversation allows individual scientists to reflect back on their community and critique/praise aspects of it to make room for future improvements.

Within this interview, I found it interesting that the scientist was asked to rate virtues on a scale. This exercise combines empirical and philosophical thought, as the scientist was asked to give a quantitative value to overarching values/dispositions practiced within his/her field. During this portion of the interview, I also agree with the scientist that being collaborative is not necessarily a crucial factor for scientific success. This mindset stems from class readings and discussions regarding Barbara McClintock, whose act of isolation was infamous within the scientific community. That being said, although she was very much an independent scientist, she reached her telos and flourished as she won the greatest symbol of recognition: a Nobel Prize. From this, one can conclude that she did in fact achieve eudemonia, but did so without using the help of those around her. Thus, one can draw a similar conclusion, as did the scientist interviewee: working alongside others is indeed significant, but it is not a requirement to achieve scientific success and become recognized by the community.

On another note, I was thrilled to see that this scientist referred back and provided many anecdotes supporting his reasoning for the application of skepticism within the scientific domain. Personally, it is fascinating to see how naturally ingrained this practice is, as the scientist even notes during the interview that he always remains guarded and skeptical when information is presented to him by his fellow colleagues and students. As a student within this field myself, I can attest to the fact that my personal lab job environment is similar to the one that this scientist describes. However, I strongly believe that with skepticism, openness must also be highlighted as well. It is one thing to be skeptical of others, but it is another thing to be skeptical but open to new ideas/concepts as this provides a solid foundation for moving forward and progressing.

Blog #22

This section of Pennock’s book is unique as it paints a different perspective on scientific virtues and practice by highlighting a darker issue. Throughout this book thus far, the chapters focused on the benefits and objectives of scientific virtues, and overall encourages scientists to maintain such virtues in order to achieve their eudemonia, or a path towards flourishing. However, this chapter offers a pessimistic viewpoint that alters the stereotype that scientists are all knowing and invincible.

            This chapter is especially fascinating as it reveals the negative side of science, especially the gray area where virtues transition into vices. I strongly believe that this is an important area to highlight, as science is often perceived as being infallible; however it is significant to note that scientists are indeed humans like everyone else and are subjected to making the same mistakes. This chapter does a great job humanizing scientists, similar to that of the autobiographies that we previously analyzed in class. However, I also believe that innocence should not be treated as ignorance in the path of scientific research. This mindset is in reference to the infamous Manhattan Project, where teams of scientists were devoted towards efforts in harnessing nuclear energy and ultimately created a mass weapon. As a result, I do not believe that in this situation it is appropriate to label these scientists as completely “innocent.” In a small degree I do believe they were innocent as they attempted to understand the mechanism underlying atomic energy, but as they gradually learned of its potential I believe that their innocence transformed into ignorance, as they did not appropriately monitor their immense progress.

            This concept ties back to Einstein’s book, “Ideas and Opinions” where he illustrates the idea of virtues becoming vices, in relation to the creation of the H-bomb. Specifically, he indirectly references the virtue of curiosity, which is also highlighted in this chapter of Pennock’s book. The popular idiom that “curiosity will kill the cat” does in some ways contain a hint of truth as the creation of the H-bomb literally resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. In order to balance virtues without them turning into vices, I believe that scientists should become active participants in deciding how to properly utilize/distribute such innovations. In reference to the Manhattan Project, Einstein admits in his book that after scientists created the H-bomb, they must be actively involved in the decision-making process that is associated with their creations. Since scientists are the experts in their own creations, they need to also be knowledgeable about the possible impacts it might have; thus their opinions should be immensely valued and trusted.

Dr. Pennock then plays devil’s advocate by suggesting that those that are expressing curiosity are only doing so to practice their virtues to the fullest extent and are not doing any wrongs. I do agree with this statement, but again to a degree. Just as there are limits to values such as freedom of speech, I strongly support the idea that virtues must be controlled as well, as it will limit the chances of scientists creating something where its aftereffects might be more harmful than helpful.

Blog #21

This section of Feynman’s autobiography was especially thought provoking as he introduced topics that were previously highlighted in class discussions and more notably, Dr. Pennock’s book. In the first section of chapter 4, Feynman discusses his passion for teaching and remarks that he always wanted to do something and to contribute something to his field. He then notes that this was a mindset that he had, which is unique as it aligns very closely to the points illustrated by Dr. Pennock. In Pennock’s book, he discusses the idea of internal goods versus external goods, and what motivates scientists to pursue their respective field. As I was reading this section, it became clear to me as the reader that Feynman was very much motivated by the idea of pursuing science just to satisfy his inherent virtue of curiosity. To support this notion, Feynman dived into this concept later in this section by noting that he wanted to do science because it was “fun,” in other words, he was not motivated on a monetary basis, or the need to discover something, but simply experimented with different thoughts/tools just to see what would happen. He also states that he wanted to enjoy science and not feel pressured to make discoveries. This is a significant notion as this mindset was also reflected in scientists such as Darwin, who admitted multiple times throughout his autobiography that his only purpose in life was to pursue science, to find out some truths to the natural world, and to ultimately contribute something for the next generation to follow suit.

Furthermore, this section involved discussion of “languages,” which is a flexible word that can be taken in many different contexts. Feynman highlights this topic by introducing his trip to Brazil, whereby he learned that his students were mainly memorizing the information presented. This is an interesting point because he then discusses a situation in which he meets someone that spoke Mandarin and he responds in Cantonese. These two points are significant since they both highlight the importance of communication in science. I immediately compared this concept to Barbara McClintock, who struggled in communicating her findings to her fellow peers in the field of genetics. In Feynman’s book however, we see that in communicating information to others in a particular way influences their actions. For example, he noticed through his effective communication with his students that they were merely memorizing information presented to them as opposed to learning. In his second anecdote, we see that he interacts with someone speaking a different dialect, which brings up the point that even the slightest errors might result in skewed information/miscommunication. Both situations again illustrate that to be effective as a scientist is to be able to communicate to others effectively in order to spread knowledge and in certain situations, correct miscommunication errors.

Blog #20

“Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!” is a fascinating read as it takes on a comical twist on an autobiography. This is a unique perspective from the autobiographies of Charles Darwin and Benjamin Franklin, both of which took on a more solemn tone when evaluating their lives in hindsight. What is also special about this book is that Feynman not only revisits his childhood, but rather emphasizes this portion of his life. This is a significant point to highlight as autobiographies allow the author to portray their life in a certain manner; that being said, in Darwin’s autobiography, the reader is only allowed a small glimpse into this younger years of life. This difference in writing style illuminates the ways that these two individuals wanted to depict themselves to others; in Darwin’s case, he emphasized his publications and his journey as a scientist, whereas Feynman focuses the first section of his story to his childhood and the innocent curiosity he displayed towards inventions and technology. In doing so, he shows a comprehensive interest and respect for the sciences, whereas scientists such as Darwin and McClintock only highlighted their interests for their respective domains.

            Within the field of science, there is an ongoing stereotype of the “mad scientist,” where researchers are always depicted as being meticulous and serious. However, in this autobiography, by introducing himself in a light manner, Feynman immediately sets himself apart from these stigmas.  He further highlights the inklings of virtues that we have previously discussed in class, most notably that of curiosity. This passage further reinforces a point made by Dr. Pennock in his book, where he illustrates the idea of having a vocation or a calling for a field, specifically that of science. Pennock further dives into this topic by illustrating that only those that have such a calling for a field are the ones that are able to flourish and achieve their end “telos.” This point is critical when analyzing Feynman’s work as we see that his innocent childhood curiosity was a virtue that he practiced way before he even entered the field of science.

            In accordance to this idea, I strongly believe that it is important to highlight that a mere vocation for a field/topic is not enough, but that one needs a nurturing environment to foster such individual growth. For instance, in Feynman’s book, he recalls of an instance whereby a hotel called him and asked for his assistance in repairing a radio, even though he was merely a child at the time. After successfully accomplishing this task, he then notes that he received many calls asking for maintenance assistance, and such opportunities provided a solid foundation for him to grow from, learn, and build upon such virtues. This is a point that resonated something with me because often in science, many naturally assume that one’s vocation and passion is necessary for one to become successful, however after reading Feynman’s autobiography, I argue that one’s environmental circumstances are just as important.