Tuesday, October 22, 2013
SoScietal Knowledge
After today's productive and enlightening discussion, I believe I've learned my lesson: focus! To that end, let's build on the thinking and writing you did on the ways and extents to which science is shaped by societies. In your science class tomorrow, or in your work from earlier this term, select a moment of knowledge that is a product of the society that produced it. You might identify an idea that is presented as an objective truth but that doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of other perspectives, or you may discover a truth that is knowingly dependent on a certain societal bent. Either way, identify the moment, explain the perspective(s) at work, and consider (in writing) how another perspective would change the facts or meaning(s) of the facts. Please complete this work by 9:30 Wednesday evening, then read others' writing before class on Thursday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the recent biology classes, we are learning about cells. One thing I found interesting is the cell theory, which were developed by Theodor Schwan and Mtthias Schleiden in the nighteenth century. In the cell theory, one of the three statements say that all living things are made of cells.
ReplyDeleteMany hidden assumptions and common knowledges, including that we are on earth, we speak the same language, we grow up in relatively similar societies, we have some scientific background, and many others, are helping us to understand the statement in the way in which Theodor Schwan and Mtthias Schleiden assumed people would think.
In different societies, the scientific terminology used in this theory may mean differently or be interpreted differently:
Firstly, the definition of living things can be different. The scientific explanation of living things are things that are either plants and animals. In some culture or some religion, some objects, which are considered non-living scientifically, may be seen as lives. On the other hand, people from less civilized or educated regions may think that plants are not living because they can not move. (That was my thinking when I was five.) Only people with certain amount of scientific knowledge would get the exact information that this theory provides.
Secondly, the word “cell” has multiple meanings. According to Merriam Webster, including “a room in a prison, jail, etc., where prisoners live or are kept”, “a small room that one person (such as a monk or a nun) lives in”, and “any one of the very small parts that together form all living things” (merriam-webster.com). In the society we live in, the primary meaning of cell we think of is the third one. What if some people from another society consider cell as jail or a monk’s room or they only know those two meanings but not the one used in the theory? What if the word “cell” even have more meanings in other societies?
Additionally, the accuracy of the statement is doubtful. Did Theodor Schwan and Mtthias Schleiden know about other planets back then? Are they only talking about earth or the whole universe? Probably an alien would come and say our living things are made of gum.
In general, in order to understand the statement that all living things are made of cells, the learners have to have same background as us or he would get the wrong information.
Interestingly, Robert Hooke, a 17th century British scientist, is credited with naming cells. He first examined cork cells, I believe, which he thought resembled monastic chambers, hence the name.
DeleteSuki and I were mostly interested by the different meanings of the word "cell." For me, I thought it was great to point out the fact that different cultures are going to think of one meaning of cell before the other. It would sound strange to someone who thinks of jail cells, to hear about "the cell theory." For Suki, she thought the idea of alien is very interesting. The aspect of organism other than human might think about the things differently than we think.
DeleteMaah, Sophia, Gabby, Yasmin:
DeleteSince many people speak about religion vs science it shows that religion came before science in history. This might be a reason for faith being a more prominent way of knowing because it existed to the human way of mind much earlier than science did i.e the definition of cells.
Societies can have a huge influence on science. From our previous class, we came to the conclusion that although there may be a general definition for everything, a majority of the time we as individuals can or not to define, a certain thing. For me, societies are groups of people that thrive in the same direction, however remain unique. For example, I am a part of three main societies: Russians, Americans, and Stoneleigh Burnham Schooliens. I chose these three because in each one there is a general population all thriving, growing, and learning in the same direction. Although individuals in the three societies are very diverse, in general, they are all going in the same direction. At least that is what I believe the definition of society is. That being said, I believe that science is influenced by various societies. Today, my mother and I were having a very in-depth conversation about Russia and America. We were arguing about Russia’s development as a country and whether or not it is fit to be a democracy. (It made my brain hurt). As an individual, I am a part of both Russian and American society. My mother, on the other hand, is just part of an American society. From this conversation I came to the conclusion that although we both came from an American society, we disagreed because I was also from a Russian society. I had a different perspective on some things than she had. The knowledge I gained from the conversation was that being a part of a Russian society has given me a broader understanding of both American and Russian society. In other words, I could argue in favor of America and against Russia, or in favor of Russian and against America OR in favor of BOTH! While thinking about this post, I came to the realization that had I not been a part of both societies, I would not have been able to understand the scientific/technological diversities between Russia and America. (I have a point, I promise). The diverse societies I am part of have influenced my scientific understanding of them. Thus, when I made arguments in favor or against America or Russia, I did this having a scientific knowledge that was influence by my conjoined roots of both countries.
ReplyDeleteSherica and Brianna:
DeleteVery interesting connection between your own personal experiences and your perspective on society. Question: what are some specific scientific differences between the cultures? What are some ways of knowing that have changed your opinions on these differences? Ex. Language barriers or education differences
In science it is believed that in the instance and study of evolution only the organisms most fit to survive the habitat and obstacles of the natural world (predators, illness, weather, etc) will survive. In science everything is based on fact and evidence or proof. If you do not have proof then your idea or theory is invalid. When science is the topic we tend to forget about things that can not necessarily be explained, miracles, fate or faith. When an organism turns out to dies prematurely it may not necessarily mean that they were not fit for survival, it may mean that it was just their time to die, or their fate to die quicker rather than sooner. For example, a child dies at age 10 from an unknown cause, this happens because God wanted it to happen that way. Maybe the kid 6 years down the line would have died a horrible death in war, or died not an uncomfortable death. What I am trying to say is that things happen for a reason, there are no coincidences and when it come to science we forget that. There are reasons to why I am who I am and you are who you are. We think that everything and anything must have come from somewhere, or needs proof. Sometimes spirituality is enough. Of course survival of the fittest is a great theory, but there are also less tangible theories that do not necessarily have to be understood by a human being or any organism for that matter. Socially we have accepted the fact that survival of the fittest is the only explanation for why organisms die early in life. Understanding everything in science is crucial because there must always be proof, but sometimes things just happen to happen, it can not be controlled.
ReplyDeleteThe group of maah, gabby, yasmin and sophia said that this post explains the different perspectives of perception, more specifcally spiritual perception. It is interesting that maah used religion to challenge scientific theories. Shows that faith is the opposite of science.
DeleteScience is shaped by the type of society within which it is found. Science is characterized by research,development, and the perspective from which it is being viewed. When a society is well developed and comprised of people who are well educated and open minded to research and analyses of certain situations, then different perspectives will be generated about specific topics that are science based. When a society is not greatly developed or only has a few individuals who are interested in scientific based research, then only a few perspectives will be generated and the rest of society will just agree with that scientific perspective because they had no common interest in developing there own perspectives. This theory was true of early societies that were not as developed or opened to research.
ReplyDeleteIn the 4th century BC , the earliest system of classification was developed by scientist Carolus Linneaus. This system was known as the binomial nomenclature . Linneaus classified animals based on there genus and specie, and that system was used for many years to compare and contrast the relationships of different organisms. One reason why that system was successful was because in the 4th century , not many individuals were educated enough or even interested to generate research and gain new insights to challenge Linneaus' theory. Maybe if the society had been more developed and individuals interested to challenge Linneaus' theory, what we know as homosapiens today could have been oak trees.
As society became more and more developed , so did science. Linneaus' perspective on classification was challenged. Though the binomial nomenclature was still used as a base for classification, theories such as evolution and comparative anatomy was developed as well. This realistically proves how another persons perspective changed the facts and meanings behind classification.
Science is different depending on the type of people who live in that society. The more openminded a society is to research the more scientific their theories are.
DeleteIn this post, I am not exactly sure what the question is. What is defined as a “moment of knowledge”? By going out on a limb, I am assuming this post is about a scientific theory society has generated that people believe is true. An example of this is Albert Einstein’s speed of light theory. This theory in a brief summary, states that absolutely nothing can move faster than the speed of light. However, how do we know that this theory we have accepted to be true is actually in fact, true? Through many experiments that were done to test the reliability and actuality of this theory, people have assumed it to be correct. Through the great development of technology we have acquired, people have assumed it to be correct. But, what if there is something in the world that can move faster than light that we just have not found yet. Or, what about the people who do not have such access to meticulous and intricate technology as we do? Would/Could they still believe or know that the speed of light is the fastest thing in any form of existence? If this theory is found to be false by further experimentations and investigations, the world’s scientific fact would definitely be doubted. It would cause more suspicion and hesitation in the science world about what they know, and if what they “know” is correct. In a sense, it would be testing the society’s theory of scientific knowledge; questioning the “scientist knowers” knowledge, and figuring out how they know what they know and what they convince society of, is actually true.
ReplyDeleteIn biology class, we have been learning about the theory of evolution. Evolution is the process of cumulative change in the heritable characteristics of a population. This theory was proposed by Charles Darwin in the 19th century. The theory of evolution is a good example of knowledge that is a product of the society that proved it because not everyone believes in every aspect of it. The basic theory of evolution is one of the most commonly accepted ideologies, but there are many variations to it. In other words, many different ideologies and adaptations to this theory exist. These adaptations depend on the society’s beliefs; because the world contains many different communities, there are so many adaptations to the belief of Evolution. For example, the theory of creationism says that God created the living organisms of this Earth. Depending on the society that one lives in, different ideologies of the big question of “Where did the world come from?”differ. For example, I believe in God, but I also believe in the theory of evolution because of the societies that I am a part of. I am Christian, so I believe in God creating the Earth, but I am also educated in biology and fortunately have the opportunity to learn about the evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution. If I was not born and raised with the religion of Christianity around, or had no knowledge of creationism, I simply would not believe in it.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that society has shaped or persuaded our science throughout history. In summary, I believe that society, whether they realize it or not, funds and supports certain causes, experiments, and ideas in science. When a traumatic event or dilemma pops up in our world, we now know that most problems can either be explained or fixed with science. Society will fund and support areas in science that benefit us and meet our needs. Being October, which is the national breast cancer awareness month, I think it’s appropriate to apply the idea that society influences science to this. Breast cancer has occurred for hundreds of years, but now that our society has the idea that science could possibly help, many dollars have been poured into breast cancer research. In broader terms, when a disease pops up in society, we immediately think that we can get to the root cause of it and cure it. Since the general public is now terrified of breast cancer or have had their lives touched by it, more people are inclined to support research. When looking at this specific example, a couple viewpoints could be brought up. Although research has shown that many people have been affected by breast cancer, there is still a portion of the population who has not. These people could still agree with the general consensus that breast cancer is bad, but they do not have the same drive to stop the disease. If a majority of the population was like this, I doubt the same effort would be put into research for breast cancer.
ReplyDeleteGrace, Qianqian, and Sarah say that this is a wonderful example of how science affects societies, and how societies effect the research of science and how it is presented to the public, not the actual science because that is fact, and it doesn't rely on us knowing about it to exist.
DeleteIn the question posed by this post, the term “society” is once again brought up. Though, what is meant by the term “society”? Does it mean our cultures or our country, or is it the time and place in which we live? What is the scope of this term? However, if I look at the word “society” in the post and understand it as “any/all the differences that groups of people may embody”, then the answer to this question would be that science itself will not hold up to the scrutiny of religious groups. For example, a person who believes in God will not accept the potential fact of evolution, because according to the Bible, God made the first people as we are now. This is assuming that society is the time and place where I, the knower live in, which is a modern, scientific society. By contrast, if asked why do humans look the way that they look, a Catholic person might say “because God made us this way”, while a scientist, or someone who has faith in science would say “ Humans evolved from monkeys”.
ReplyDeleteMy moment of knowledge occurred in Biology class earlier this week, when it was presented to me as a fact that all living organisms are made of cells. This fact can only be stated as a fact in a society that has microscopes, because there is no other way to prove that cells exist than using a microscope. Even using a microscope, there is no way to be absolutely sure that all living organisms are made from cells. What if what we see in the microscope are only patterns and shapes on the glass of the microscope lens? The shapes and patterns could be different because the glass reacts differently with different things, so really, the only thing that we can say is made out of cells is glass, and glass isn’t even living. The Ancient Chinese is another group of people (among many) that wouldn’t be able to accept that living organisms are made from cells, because to them, the supreme Goddess Nu Wa crafted all the people on earth from the silt of the yellow river. So their perspective would have changed the fact that every living thing is made from cells, to them, silt would be made from cells, because living things are made from silt, but silt isn’t alive, so what are cells? What is it that they really make up? It is doubtful that the Ancient Chinese would even ratify the existence of cells, because they didn't have microscopes, therefore, they have no real, perceptive proof that cells exist.
More importantly, as i think more about moments of knowledge in Biology class, I realize, or remember that nothing in biology is definite, therefore, they are not facts. Biological theories are called theories because based on limited observation, they have not been proven wrong. The "fact" that all living organisms are made of cells is part of the cell theory. Yet, we treat them as facts...until they are disproven. So, maybe sometime in the future, the cell theory will be proved wrong, or at least the part that says "all living organisms are made from cells". In that future society, how many years it might be away, what we treat as fact is not fact to them. Just like how the atomic model was changed so many times from Thompson to Dalton and to what we have now, maybe that will be proven wrong too in the future.
Deleteso the point/question is that: can we treat anything we learn in biology as facts? Because biology is based on a bunch of theories, and theories are made based on observation, and observation is based merely on perception. So couldnt anyone with a different perspective change the theories? After all, theories are not laws( scientifically).---Fermat's Enigma
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJordyn, Olivia and Cynthia; we agree with your post, your sub-post and your sub sub-post. It is interesting that theories are based on limited observation, yet we still base our lives on them.
DeleteIn science classes this term we have mostly talked about organisms and their evolution, and more recently cells. One theory that came to my mind is the theory of cells, cells can not just appear; therefore, all cells must come from other cells. This theory is similar to the theory of evolution, that all organisms have ancestors and have evolved over time through natural selection to become what they are; no organisms can just appear on Earth. I think that in our society we are encouraged to believe in facts and proof, and there is proof of both of these theories. For example, there is proof of evolution through fossil records. However, some people have different interpretations of this. I am a person who totally believes in the scientific perspective of evolution, I love science and I think that there is a lot of fact and hands on proof that it provides for many aspects of life. On the other hand, my grandmother is very religious and she thinks that god put all life on Earth and there is no such thing as evolution. I think that that both of these beliefs are drastic opposite ends of the spectrum but they are discussing the same thing and arguable based on your beliefs either could be believed. Beliefs don’t really changed facts, but they change your view and perspective of what you choose to accept as true. I think that the society that I grew up in has steered me into believing, for example, scientifically proven facts and evidence; where as, my grandmother grew up in a society that taught her the complete opposite. It’s also kind of interesting that my mom’s beliefs are in the middle of these two, it sort of shows the transition that society has made over different generations.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I honestly struggled to understand what I was suppose to post about, but I think that yes there are facts that are not arguable, like the world is round, however there are many ways to coming to that conclusion and on the way, things can be arguable depending on someone’s perspective or society or knowledge, etc. I don’t know if this necessarily changes the facts, but it could change someone’s personal meaning of them.
One moment of knowledge from a recent science class that conflicted with a common societal perception, was when I learned how painkillers worked. I, like many other persons in the world today think that Ibuprofens make the main go away or hurt less. However, after studying about the body’s response system I learned that Ibuprofens and Acetaminophens don't make the pain go away but prevents the prostaglandins from affecting the sense receptors. Painkillers actually trick the body into thinking that the pain is gone when in actuality it is still there, our brains just aren't receiving messages of pain. The common notion that painkillers make pain go away isn’t true but it sounds better to patients or a newly injured child to calm them a bit. This one one example where society has affected science. The simple definition for the word pain is physical suffering or discomfort. But while Painkillers don't make pain go away, if our bodies cannot perceive or feel the pain, does it still mean that the pain exists? Are the people who say that painkillers make pain go away wrong ? After all, most things are dependent on an individual perspective. Thinking about this, I have just challenged a personal theory I hold close to me. While I usually argue that my science provide facts and facts are more dependable on that perceptions, this situation contradicts that theory.
ReplyDeleteBrianna and Franny: wow! Who knew that painkillers had that effect on the human Brian.I think that pain goes away mentally more than physically for those ideologies. A point you could add is comparing different societal beliefs to the painkillers. For example, how do some societies react vs others.
DeleteEvolution is one of the fascinating topics that we have recently covered in my biology class. The whole idea of gradual development and change of organisms over time as scientists believe might be opposed by other people including me. I totally disagree with the whole belief of evolution in the scientific world because the evidence provided to support the theory, is hard for me to believe in. For example, it is has been proven by scientists that whales were once terrestrial creatures that had legs and a huge tails. I always ask myself how all the huge whale tails turned into small tail fins which is really impossible for me to believe. I agree with the biblical theories more than the scientific theories because it makes more sense for me to believe that the most powerful God has the most sophisticated power that we as humans, do not have that can help us understand the context of creationism to a certain extent rather than just making me believe in complicated theories like evolution.
ReplyDeleteEvery person has a way she believes or understands something. The perspectives of people might differ from one another. I believe that everybody needs to stick with his/ her own way of understanding because we are all human beings. What can tell me that your point of view is better than mine if we both use the same way of understanding things? I however, don’t disregard the theory of evolution or other people’s theories because I believe that each person has a way of understanding things either in the same or different way as mine.
Evolution is one of the topics IB biology has been studying this term. Evolution is often controversial, even though there is proof that I, and other scientists, believe to completely prove that organisms adapt and evolve all of the time. However, I have grown up in societies and environment where I am able and encouraged to look at different theories and beliefs and make a decision for myself. All of my immediate is catholic, and has been confirmed. Although I have been brought up to go to church I wanted to explore other theories, rather than be told what to believe. Even though my mom wanted me to be confirmed she did not keep me from exploring what I wanted to. Now I know that I am atheist and believe completely in the theory of evolution.
ReplyDeleteHowever, some people are not as lucky as I am to live in a place where they can explore their curiosities and questions. In some cultures and societies it is not common for people, especially woman to make their own decisions. They are told what to believe, whether by government or family, and how to do things. The majority of the people in these societies, I’m sure, do not and will not believe in evolution because it is not a part of their beliefs and they are not allowed to research different beliefs. This shows that science is completely affected by society because science is just another form of belief. Although there are tangible facts in science, not everyone believes in it because their religion and up bringing says otherwise. Thus, people in different societies will believe different things, affecting which “Science” is correct.
Suki thought that it is great to exemplify the aspect about evolution of Heather herself as a Catholic. The value of society shape the people's belief which deeply influenced the development of science. Cathy thinks that it is interesting that Heather compared her society she grow up in and other's societies. Science can definitely shaped or limited by societies.
DeleteScience is based on societies because it is discovered by the people within the society, but I don’t think that science can be shaped. Science is facts that we discover, that the earth teaches us. Science can shape others, but it has been in place before we discovered it. People can choose to base their lives on scientific facts that they have learned, and they can twist facts around what they believe, but the facts will remain the same. I’m not sure I understand this question, since my view on science is based on the fact that it is not my view. It is impossible for a person to have a view on science, because it is facts, and it is impossible to challenge facts that the earth has proved, and that have been in place since before humans. I would have to say that my “ahah” moments in science would be whenever I learned something that changes my view on life. We were learning about cells today, and I turned to QianQian and said “we are learning about cells and what happens in them, and as we’re learning this this is happening in our body, so we can learn this.” That blew my mind, but again, it shaped me, not science. I am excited to come to class tomorrow, and read my classmate’s posts. I hope to be able to think a little differently, because right now I feel trapped in a box of facts.
ReplyDeleteJordyn Olivia and Cynthia: We agree that people can twist facts into their beliefs. This is how people can be talking about the same facts but interpret it into for example, the theory of evolution, or something completely different like Adam and Eve.
DeleteWe recently learned evolution which advanced by English naturalist Charles Darwin in Biology class. This theory, which is allowed to be proved by considerable number of evidences and high-technology, is accepted by most people now. I am suspicious that there were more scientists before Charles Darwin had similar miniature with the origins of species. However, there was a long period that European had deep influence of religion. Christians believe that Adam and Eve which created by God six thousand years ago were their ancestors, and Jesus Chris scarified himself to reconcile human. If those scientists born in the wrong time period, even though they raise the right theory, the ending of them would either be covered up or be executed. Charles Darwin born in a right time. Although he was baptized and went to a church school, there were more freethinkers, who could support him, emerged at that time.
ReplyDeleteIn the different region, there are more different types of myths about the origin of human. In India, the primal being was sacrificed, and he became butter. From that butter, all things in heaven and earth were created, including the gods and the first human. In Greece, they insisted that people are the descendants of gods, and women's ancestor was Pandora. From what I know the Chinese myths, there are two of them about the human origin. One of them is a goddess Nv Wa used yellow clay sculpting and her spittle to create the human, and that's why Chinese people have yellow color skin. Another one is Pan Gu who uses axe to separate the sky from earth is the ancestor of human bring. In those societies, human already started to think about the origin of human. People had rich imagination, but lack of academy and technology. And this is the way societies shape the science.
I think that it was interesting to compare time periods, rather than places. To think of a certain period of time in the same place in a different time period is definitely going to change the thinking of the people. I honestly didn't even think about that!
DeleteCathy thinks that it is interesting that Suki compared scientific theory with religion and myth. Personally, Cathy feels that religion and myth have nothing to do with science. Religion and myth do not have any actual and strong enough evidence to support the statements made, while science is the reality.
Science is a very broad topic, however in its combination of factual and physical, it is always correct. In my science class, we talk about the environment, and how it is impacted by the societies that inhabit it. For example, on Monday, my class traveled to the Falls River to sample and test the water quality. It was intriguing to learn that the human society that surrounds the river has a huge impact on its natural state. Human societies are invasive and tend to disregard the little beings that surround them. For example, fertilizer on a nearby farm could totally change and harm the chemical balance in the river. This is the same within human society as well. We are built and intertwined on many levels of power and influence, and due to this, we are harmful to our own kind. Science proves to be incredibly helpful in explaining why a certain group of humans, perhaps with more power, maintains influence over another. The science that is composed of many proved theories teaches us how to define ourselves within our own societies.
ReplyDeleteJordyn, Olivia and Cynthia discussed the idea of science always being correct. We concluded that in fact, science is not always correct because there are somethings that humans can never explain and there can be errors in experiments or theories. We have evidence to prove that some aspects of theories are true, but whether or not, they actually are fully true can never be known by us.
DeleteThis is an interesting topic because science is defined by the culture in which it is being discovered. I guess that's exactly what we are trying to prove, but I think that the entire development of the way science has been advancing is based on the society and culture in which it is used. For example, we were briefly talking about stem cell research and all of the uses it has. This wasn't really a topic, but it was more like a discussion of something that not all of us knew anything about but seemed to be extremely controversial. We were talking about it, and about how sometimes in stem cell research they take the specialized cells from unborn children, or their umbilical cords and all that. I remember talking about how different religions and different secs of the same religion all either accepted or were explicitly against the use of stem cells. We were talking about this and there was this one moment in my mind when I thought about how the science that we use on the daily is truly affected by our cultures, because our cultures and our societies are the ones who will use it. Production is based on what everyone thinks consumption will be; its the same for science. Because stem cells are very controversial but also extremely important to growth in medicine, we support research of them with money and support. However, many groups don't approve of Stem cells and so the research and funds that are provided for them are cut due to societies opinion on what they think stem cells should be used for. And this is repeated everywhere within science.
ReplyDeleteTechnology (did you hear they came out with the new ipad air?), specifically first world comfort technology, is advancing much more rapidly than anything else. I mean, come on, do we really need an ipod touch that comes in seven different colors? Like, no change to the actual software, but a change in the actual color? No, of course we don't. But society is based on looks and impressions and so that's what technology (and science) market to when trying to research and come up with new ideas.
Sherica and Franny: it was interesting how you talked about different societal opinions about stem cell research and use. Your point about technology was also very well thought out.
Delete