Blog #9

This reading depicts the scientific virtues, more notably, how science is guided by the “organized curiosity” approach. Within this domain, curiosity has also been deemed as practice since it is a fundamental attribute in the field that drives to explore undiscovered truths. Dr. Pennock then further delves deeper into this topic by exploring certain practices carried out in the scientific realm; one such example was where he describes the importance of trust. As mentioned in the passage, honesty is a necessity as it allows for scientists to not only survive in the field, but to thrive and expand. I especially found it interesting when Dr. Pennock explored Merton’s norm of universalism, as it invites the idea that truths should be explored via an unbiased lens, in other words, disregarding religion, gender, etc. However, as discussed in prior discussions, there is a very clear distinction between “should it” and “does it.” Following this section, I believe that this is a core factor in science, but as of current times I do not believe that it is maintained; this is evident in current political measures that have disrupted the immigration of scientists from all walks of life. 

            Furthermore, another passage that resonated with me was where the author explores the openness of researchers in communicating their ideas and their research to others, more notably anyone within and outside the scientific community. Although such public grand gestures are something that still continue today (as seen in college research symposiums, healthcare specialty conferences, etc.) I disagree with Dr. Pennock as open scientific communication is necessary to maintain the practice of honesty, however, I strictly do not believe that “scientific evidence is public evidence” (Pennock 5). Although scientists have a duty to report their findings towards the public, I believe that especially in modern times, scientific information must be filtered appropriately in order to translate news to the public. The onslaught of modern controversial findings regarding gene therapy, artificial intelligence, etc., invites an immense amount of public concern, therefore science should be protected to an extent (as determined by appropriate committees).

            The last significant point from this passage was in regards to how science “checks” itself, as nothing is concrete in science. We have established this checking cycle in discussions, especially in regards to publishing false data for scientific journals. Within the scientific community, the importance of publication is to communicate studies to others in the hopes that those replicating such studies further discover something new. However, if “bad science” is published, the scientific community checks this system by replication and reviewing experiments. As a result, this section is significant as it illustrates ways in which scientists maintain the integrity and honesty of science. Furthermore, the uncertainty of science was further explained by the philosopher Pyrrho, who stated that every bit of knowledge also invites questions; in other words, there is no way to prove, only ways to support. This was an especially significant portion of this passage as it relates back to Dr. Pennock’s first chapter where he discusses the intertwined relationship between science and philosophy; the open boundaries invited by philosophy expand the otherwise concrete borders of science. 

Blog #8

I explored the obituary of one of the leading minds in biology during the twentieth century, Francis Crick. Within this passage, I gained a small glimpse into Crick’s lifetime through the eyes of Charles F. Stevens, who collaborated with Crick on a plethora of projects within the Salk Institute. In explaining Crick’s discovery of not only DNA’s helical structure, but also of the role of RNA and amino acids in the process, Stevens reveals small yet significant details of Crick’s virtues as a scientist. In particular, he elaborates the atmosphere of the scientific community of the 1950s by noting that interests were primarily stemming from obtaining goods, which made science “fun” as it was not driven by funding (Stevens 846). Stevens paints Crick’s persona as a determined and logical individual, who was not afraid to ask the stir the pot and invite controversy and discussion in the field. This attribute is a significant practice, as I believe it contributes towards his success as a scientist.

Furthermore, his obituary drew many parallels to others within this field, most notably the information gleaned from both Franklin and Darwin. Like both of these scientists, Stevens also reveals the influence of religion–in this case, the lack thereof–it had on Crick’s approach towards his research. In the discovery of DNA, Crick also had a motive that stretched beyond making a contribution to the natural sciences; he wanted to ensure that these phenomena could be purely justified using chemistry/physical reasoning, consequently supporting his atheist viewpoint. This perspective is significant as this researcher strived to combine his personal views with his research; this is a stark contrast from what we have gleaned from Darwin’s autobiography, as he slowly but surely made a split from his religious orthodox beliefs to purely focus and dedicate his life to science. I believe that Crick’s unique perspective offers an explanation for his scientific virtues as well. Within this passage, he strives to provide logical reasoning towards his studies, and in the process illustrates his virtues of openness and sympathy. In his research, he strived to include and educate other researchers in the process, which was his way of making a contribution.  Within this passage, Stevens notes how Crick waited for other members of his team to show and observe his DNA model before he proceed on to the next step. As mentioned in Chapter 3 of Pennock’s book, actions encouraging openness and honesty illustrated by scientists further depict the implementation of these dispositions in practice.

Furthermore, while reading this obituary, I grew to realize certain aspects highlighted of Crick’s life mirrors practices of Nichomachean ethics. As an outsider peering into a brief synopsis of a scientist’s life, I strongly believe that Crick’s work within this field illustrated how well he flourished or accomplished “eudaimonia” during his life. This level of achievement is clearly depicted in the determination and other previously mentioned “ergons” or characteristic activities that Crick displayed, all while piecing together what would be the blueprint for all life forms.

Blog #7

  

This reading drew many parallels to previous autobiographies that we have explored. Within Aristotle’s work, we are exposed to the inner workings of happiness operating as a fundamental virtue. The passage first starts off by saying that every action is meant to end up at something “good,” irrespective of the path taken to get there. However, as the reader, this is something that opens up a lot of interesting discussion. What does it mean to be good? This particular question is one that introduces a lot of discussion is: does being good based on mere individual moments or is it based on an overarching journey towards goodness that occurs throughout one’s life? Within our course itself, we are exposed to Franklin and Darwin’s journey to achieve a life of virtue, but only after their deaths and when we can glance back at their lives and the successes/failures in hindsight.

In Book 2, Aristotle goes further in depth to discuss the different kinds of virtues, ones that are taught to others (intellectual) versus ones performed through practice/lifestyle changes (moral). Both passages drew a lot of parallels between our other readings of both Darwin and Franklin’s autobiographies; in the latter one especially, we see that Franklin took active measures to become virtuous. In this process, he approached this topic by listing out his top virtues much like the Ten Commandments; he then kept a scientific notebook and tracked his actions throughout the day and made checkmarks by the virtues he acquired/maintained that day. Additionally, in Darwin’s autobiography, he notes how he had to part with his religious ways and beliefs in order to dedicate his life towards his work: science. In both cases, we see that these bright minds were self-reflective in that they realized that to reach their goals of happiness, and to maintain their virtues they had to change at the very core.

Blog #6

This section was particularly interesting as we are further exposed to Darwin’s life and how he wanted to present himself to the public eye. This section first begins with Darwin’s internal conflict with his religion, as he was originally orthodox, but through a slow and gradual process grew to become an agnostic. This journey was especially fascinating as we are exposed to the factors that played a part in his decision; for example, he mentioned how deeply his young daughter’s death affected him as well as how his findings regarding natural selection stood at odds with the long-standing beliefs of his orthodox religion. As a result, I sense that this chapter definitely helped humanize Darwin, which is much like that of Franklin’s autobiography. Both stories illustrate that there is more to scientists than their names merely attached to a list of successes. As a result, this section regarding Darwin’s spiritual journey. It is also important to note that such a transition was not an easy process for Darwin; more importantly he experienced moments of self-doubt. In one particular passage, Darwin delves deep into whether or not one should trust the intellect of man, who has originated from lowly animals–therefore, as the reader, we have the opportunity to visualize a scientist struggle to balance his empirical evidence versus spiritual beliefs, in other words, science and philosophy of religion.

Furthermore, this chapter explores Darwin’s journey into the world of research as Darwin begins to depict himself as a scientist. What I found to be particularly interesting in this section was that he explicitly stated how the most important aspect of his life is his work in science, in the form of publications. As a scientist, he even applies aspects of his research in his family life. For instance, he notes of his child’s birth, and how he immediately began observing facial expressions, etc. to further understand development in the human species compared to other organisms. This again is similar to that of Franklin, who when assumed the role of a publisher, began to dress, act, and approach others in a way that further added to his credibility as one. On an overarching note, this section illuminated Darwin’s personal journey as a scientist and the multitude of ways that brilliant minds from different times, are more similar than previously thought.

Blog #5

            This book is fascinating as again we dive into the life of another great thinker and scientist, Charles Darwin. In this section of the book, Darwin exposes his early life and his home environment, both of which nurtured the mind of what would soon become an icon. Within this section, I was drawn to the way Darwin portrayed himself to others; he cherry-picked details of his childhood that he wanted to share amongst others. Particularly, he sparsely spoke of his mother, but delved deep into the topic of his father and the role he played within his life as a young boy; particularly, we see that Darwin places a negative connotation for his father as he illustrates his stern presence and constant critiquing in Darwin’s life. Furthermore, he depicts his journey on a deeply personal level, as shown by his lack of interest during his time at university. This is in stark contrast to his experience on the Beagle, where he grew to love science as a field and began thinking like one as well.

            The sole purpose of this perspective is that it not only introduces a humbler side to Darwin’s experiences as a scientist, but also illustrates inklings of Darwin’s quest towards understanding scientific virtue. Specifically, there was a passage within this book where Darwin inquires Buckle regarding the legitimacy of the works he chooses to read. When asked how he could gauge what book is reliable, Buckle responds that it’s due to a certain “instinct” that drives him towards certain works (Barlow 90). This illustrates a hint of scientific virtues that help supplement a scientific work/study and further helps legitimize one’s findings.

            As a future healthcare professional, I find that it is extremely valuable to glance at individuals and their actions in hindsight, in order to not only understand more about their personal experiences, but to further comprehend the changes that have occurred in the scientific mindset.

Blog #4

These two readings were intertwined with one another, as they both not only reinforced the ties between science and philosophy, but also illustrates the direction of science and highlights the question: Is science virtuous? As seen by Franklin’s autobiography, he illustrates his quest towards establishing and maintaining his values, and does so by keeping track of his approach towards a variety of topics and even alters his terminology to mirror that of a self-reflecting scientist; open and receptive towards other opinions and perspectives. This reading was a necessity towards understanding the mechanism behind scientific virtue as it allowed readers to catch a glimpse into the life and personal journey of one of the brightest minds in United States History. This personable story was one that depicted a humbler side towards one’s quest into “enlightenment.” Furthermore, Franklin’s story merged science and philosophy as seen by his emphasis on values including integrity and honesty, while maintaining the critical approach of empirical science as seen in his letters regarding his electricity experiment.

This portion of the reading closely aligned with that of “Chapter Two: A Kind of Utter Honesty,” as this particular passage revealed the journey towards bettering science as a field. Specifically, I appreciated that the author highlighted the realistic perspective as scientists commonly struggle to balance between the overtly pessimistic approach versus one that is too idealistic. Realism is the best lens to view science as it encourages progress by inviting a focused objective. Within this approach, the author further delves into scientific virtues; one of the most important that I gleaned from this reading is being reflective. On a similar note, two other important virtues mentioned were integrity and honesty; the latter of which resonated something inside me. Although these are all ideal virtues, it is important to highlight the point that although they are ideal values, this does not necessarily mean that they are followed in real life. Furthermore, how do we as individuals in science turn this around? How do we make science “good” again? Or is it a lost cause?

All too often, I have personally witnessed the arrogant nature of scientists approaching the research they have conducted throughout their careers; although arrogance in research is vital towards maintaining perseverance, I strongly believed that it must be controlled. This arrogance and approaching topics in a “black and white” view often clouds the mind from the openness that self-reflection brings. As scientists, we often see science as a flawless field filled with endless opportunities. However, as both the Franklin reading and this passage from Pennock’s book suggest, one must remain critical because there is always room for improvement: ranging from the overall scientific community to the individual scientist in the lab.