Thursday, May 1, 2014
Bigger Than a Quarter
It's time to look inward. Let's read some neuroscience! Please find an article on neuroscience, either from RadioLab or 3 Quarks Daily (on the Links list) or from Scientific American, Nature, or Science. Once you've read (and likely reread) the article, extract one KQ that addresses Ways of Knowing and Areas of Knowledge, then answer the question from two perspectives (your own, explicitly defined in context, and another). Include a brief introduction to the article in your post, along with a link to the article. Please have this up by Sunday night. Happy brain picking!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-beauty/
ReplyDeleteThis article was a lot more interesting than I thought it would be. The article focused on why we think things are pretty and why we think things are ugly. The reasoning that they gave was because of our anterior insula which is in the deep depth of our cerebral cortex. However this part of our brain hold most of the negative emotions and thoughts that we feel and think. To combat this the article explained that our reasoning for pretty and ugly things is because we are determining if that object is good for us. For example if we are hungry and we see an apple, we will think that apple is awesome, same with mate; If we like guys with green eyes, then we will think a guy with green eyes is especially handsome. The anterior insula of our brain hold our “aesthetic center”.
KQ: How can our sense perception of sight influence the knowledge of ourselves?
Perspective 1: Sense perception of sight can influence our self knowledge because if someone always sees the color orange and because of their anterior insula, receives the feeling of content or pleasure, they can conclude that orange is probably their favorite color. The feeling that they get can definitely say what they do not like or do like. Sight is probably one of the first sense that we, as humans, use to judge objects and humans
Perspective 2: Sense perception of sight can influence the knowledge of ourselves because it can inhibit us from what we may find cool and what we may find not so cool. I think that the saying ‘don’t judge a book by its cover’, come into play here, because when someone looks at something or someone, its appearance is the first thing that the eye focuses on. To apply this to a person, they could see the prettiest person in the world and that person could have the worst heart. However, our eyes do not allow us to see that on the outside. This situation could be flipped and we could have the person looking at a very ugly person, but that person has the best heart. The viewer will never know because they have already disregarded that person because of the sense perceptionn, sight. Something not easy to look at could be the best for a person, but because of sight, they may never realize.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140424102839.htm
ReplyDeleteThe article I read proposed the idea that based on studies; altruistic teens are less likely to become depressed. According to a study done by the University of Illinois, teens who participate in pro-social activities, like charity and helping family members are less likely to become depressed than teens that do not. The study was focused around the ventral striatum; an area of the brain that controls feelings of pleasure in response to rewards.
K.Q.: To what extent should we rely on neurological knowledge to evaluate a person's actions?
Perspective 1: In a court of law, when a person’s actions are puzzling a psychological analysis of them is usually ordered. The results from such an analysis are kept in mind when evaluating the person’s punishment. This is because it is believed that psychological influence such as paranoia and trauma can affect a person's ability to make conscious decisions. In these instances, the person is not held in full responsibility. But to what extent should we use this knowledge of neuroscience to judge a person. From one perspective it should be relied on to a large extent. As we advance in Science, we are realizing that there are some things that are out of human control and punish one for something out of their control is unfair and unethical. While it is somewhat challenging to blame biology or Neuroscience for an action, we have to take into consideration that these thing actually affects a person’s ability to think clearly. Because people are becoming more aware of psychological disorders, this profiling in the judicial system has become very prevalent. It also is very reliable because this process is usually carefully done by professionals who have been perfecting their craft for years.
Perspective 2: From another perspective it can be argued that we should not rely on neurological knowledge to evaluate one’s actions. This is because there are limits to neuroscience. There is a limit to the scope of things that scientists can understand about the brain. Also while mental issues can affect human behavior it is difficult to prove if a specific action was directly related to a mental issue. Another reason we should not depend on neuroscience because just like other sciences and areas of studies errors can exist and thus complete trust in neuroscience is not encouraged. Also it is possible for a person to manipulate the science and fake a disorder to release their responsibilities.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140501111732.htm
ReplyDeleteSummary: The article concerning Neuroscience that I read from sciencedaily.com (sorry to go off script), was really interesting! The article discussed the connection between the individual brain and the succumbing to temptation. The article discussed the various procedures that specialists in the field Rich Lopez and Todd Heatherton had to conduct to come to a conclusion. Participants in the experiments were asked to preform various actions that aided Lopez and Heatherton to come to an ultimate conclusion: “When the researchers grouped the participants according to their IFG activity, the data revealed that participants who had high IFG activity were more successful at controlling how much they ate in particularly tempting situations than those who had low IFG activity. In fact, participants with low IFG activity were about 8.2 times more likely to give in to a food desire than those who had high IFG activity.” I chose this article because I think it shows the reader a side of our brain that we usually do not analyze to this extent.
KQ: Too what extent does the scientific (neuroscience) knowledge of our thought process affect our perspective on our life?
Perspective #1: For the first perspective I will use myself. To answer the question: “Too what extent does the scientific (neuroscience) knowledge of our thought process affect our perspective on our life?” I would day that scientific knowledge of our thought process significantly affects our perspective on our life. When we find out new information about our brain this strikes an interest in humans; especially information, which affects our diet. A popular fascination in the 21st century is diet, weight, and exercise. In terms of this article, the scientific knowledge we get from understanding how the brain reacts to temptation, this knowledge will definitely have an affect on our perspective on our life. Most people would react to this article by questioning how their brain reacts to temptation and eventually link temptation to dieting. Because of this I believe that when new scientific knowledge is gained it will have an affect on a persons perspective.
Perspective #2: For the second perspective I will use the example of someone who is religious. For someone who puts the ideas of God above science, the answer to the KQ would be that science would not affect the perspective a person because it is not the truth. Of course every person who is religious will have different understandings of the extent to which scientific evidence is legitimate, but the essential idea will be that God trumps science. Thus, in terms of this KQ scientific knowledge will not have an affect on someone perspective on their life, because God will.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/06/01/can-neuroscience-cure-people-of-faith-in-god-what-about-faith-in-neuroscience/
ReplyDeleteThe article I chose was an article discussing a Kathleen Taylor’s claim that neuroscience can cure faith in god. This article was not particularly educational, however it intrigued me and led me to an actual article about the woman’s book, where she writes about this issue.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/kathleen-taylor-religious-fundamentalism-mental-illness_n_3365896.html
Basically, this Kathleen Taylor believes that religious fundamentalism is a mental illness, and that it can be cured. She states “Someone who has for example become radicalised to a cult ideology -- we might stop seeing that as a personal choice that they have chosen as a result of pure free will and may start treating it as some kind of mental disturbance," Taylor said. “In many ways it could be a very positive thing because there are no doubt beliefs in our society that do a heck of a lot of damage." She then goes on to say that serious cases of persuasion are brainwashing, and that “Brainwashing, if you like, is the extreme end of that; it's the coercive, forceful, psychological torture type." So, to summarize, some people have had religion forced on them by means of intense persuasion or “brainwashing” and that humans should treat their belief as a mental illness because they’re brainwashing was a type of psychological torture.”
All though I know that this article does not explain in depth how neurons in our brain works, or how our brain processes what it’s being told, it presents an interesting (and incredibly controversial) argument on faith, which I find incredibly interesting.
KQ: How does our belief in a higher power / our faith influence our perspectives on different areas of knowledge, e.g. Natural sciences, history, art.
My Perspective: I am not a religious person. I was never exposed to religion as a child, and frankly I still have very little knowledge of what different religions include. In my opinion, I believe that faith is a way for people to explain the unexplainable. Therefor, I would answer my knowledge question by saying that faith affects your perspectives on all areas of knowledge by causing you to compare the facts with what you believe to be true because of your religion. For example, If I told someone who believed in creationism that the world was created by the “Big Bang,” they would tell me that I was wrong, and that god created the world. This is because they have compared my theory with the theory that they believe to true, and to them, they’re faith is more factual than my beliefs. It really all comes down to how ingrained you are in your faith; for lack of a better word, how much faith you have in your faith. Overall, yes, it has an impact on the way you view different areas of knowledge because there is a comparison between the facts you are being presented with and the facts you believe to be true through your faith. This is neither negitive or positive.
The perspective of someone who believes religion is a form of brainwashing (for example, Kathleen Taylor): Faith limits our ability to keep an open mind when dealing with different areas of knowledge. Because these people have been brainwashed, they cannot process any other theories other than the one they have been taught. This takes away a person’s ability to make their own decisions, and essentially makes them a slave to their religion. This is an incredibly negitive thing. Everyone should be able to make their own choices, and faith limits that through limiting perspectives.
http://www.scilogs.com/psychophilosophy/science-and-the-search-for-the-soul-1-psychology-physics-and-metaphysics/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.radiolab.org/story/91503-the-unconscious-toscanini-of-the-brain/
I kind of explored a topic based on a couple of articles. There were a couple more but I lost the links to them (apologies). In the very broadest terms, I read some things about the relationship between philosophy and neuroscience, in the way that humans for centuries have tried to find the human "soul", or consciousness or however we want to put it. Whether we are trying to find answers through science or physics or philosophy or other areas of knowledge that try to help us organize the world its going to be really really complicated and difficult. All of these articles basically were about the way that we haven't found an agreed on place for the soul, and that its this huge mystery but that its all connected to religion and the mind and brains and physics and life itself.
Alright so flashback to the beginning of the year where I ask way too many questions and none of it actually makes any sense in my mind. Whats the knowledge of where the soul is located going to bring us? What does the fact that we haven't found the "control center" of our brain tell us? Why do we want to know so badly what controls us? Regardless of the answers to these questions, there is a connection between the thinkers and the doers, or the philosophers and the scientists.
What makes knowledge legitimate?
I think that knowledge is legitimate based on context. We've talked a lot about sources, about the places we've gotten information from and the reasons why we've chosen to believe specific information. Alright hypothetical situation: A famous philosopher tells me that World War II was fought on the West Coast of Iceland between a herd of giraffes and all the toys from Toy Story. Another guy, world famous scientist, tells me that thats not correct, World War II was fought on the East Coast of Iceland between a herd of giraffes and all the Toys from Toy Story. Who do I believe and why? ( I promise I really am answering my question, I'm getting there) The answer is that I believe that both of them believe that they are telling the truth, and so as a result I believe them both to be correct to a certain extent.So their information is legitimate because they both believe it to be legitimate (theres some paradoxish stuff here, I think) I really am not sure if that makes sense. I think I have to explain it out loud.
From another perspective, Knowledge is legitimate based on the fact that it is all biased information. Above I said that knowledge is legitimate if I believe the source thinks that its legitimate and so for our purposes in the conversation with said source it could be legitimate, but that I must remember that its not legitimate when used in other contexts. Here, I'm saying that knowledge is legitimate because none of it is legitimate. However, its purpose is to convey information and organize our world in a way that can be communicated and used. So if no knowledge can be considered fully unbiased, than we could equally say it could all be considered biased just by changing our definition of biased (I think; please note again I'm not really sure where I'm going with this).
I'm confused. I'm going to stop here and hope that we don't look at these in class.
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/10/neuroscience-and-justice.html
ReplyDeleteThe article I read was based on the involvement of Neuroscience in politics. Although it did not elaborate much on the contribution of neuroscience to justice, it did pose a very important question from where I was able to derive a knowledge question: how is this field of neuroscience going to impact how we think about the law and, more importantly, how we think about justice.
KQ: How can neuroscience and reason work together in providing knowledge to justify immoral human activities?
Perspective 1- The study of neuroscience would work perfectly with reason to justify human immoral activities. This is because the study of neuroscience has to deal with the examining of the brain and how it works. Certain criminal activities or activities that society views as immoral are not always done on purpose. In other words, some individuals do have problems with how their minds work, thus they commit certain acts that may not be morally acceptable to their society. If individuals in the justice system were to use the study of neuroscience plus the reasoning skills that they already have to examine certain cases, maybe the justice system would be challenged. By challenged I mean certain acts that were claimed to be immoral would be overlooked if that individual had possible brain defects and could not control what they did. It would be a bit unfair to send an individual to jail if they have mental issues that cause them to retaliate in ways beyond their control.
Perspective 2- The study of neuroscience can be used to justify immoral human activities, but it cannot be used to stop those immoral activities.The study of how the mind functions and the use of reason by trained specialist may provide an answer as to why certain people do immoral acts but, at the same time that is all it provides, an answer. What will happen to those immoral activities after they are justified? Will they not continue to take place since neuroscience cannot do everything to fix how an individual’s mind operates? Also science cannot provide an answer for everything that takes place inside the human mind. At times that individual may be perfectly fine in their thoughts and the operation of their mind, but they just desire to commit immoral acts. Neuroscience and reason cannot always be the answer for immoral activities. As a matter of fact, it can be argued that it is a bit immoral to try to use science and reason to justify immoral activities. How moral is it to say “I killed a man because my mind is messed up?” How openly would this phrase be accepted by society without punishment. It almost seems as if neuroscience and reason would justify immoral acts as innocent due to the inability of that person’s mind to conform.
Tok 25
ReplyDeletehttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/art-and-the-limits-of-neuroscience/?_php=true&_type=blogs&action=click&module=Search®ion=searchResults&mabReward=relbias%3Ar&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DSectionFront%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3Dscience%26t%3Dqry147%23%2Fneuroscience&_r=0
This article by Alva Noë discusses her opinion on arts and its connection to neuroscience, and the inhibiting effects of our brain on our perception of the arts. Neuroaesthetics is the study of art using the methods of neuroscience, so the author analyzes the study of the brain as a way of studying art. Looking at how the brain react to different artistic values is a deeper way to interpret and learn about art. Basically, the article explains the new concept of neuroaesthetics, the questions that it can answer, the questions it will raise, and future potential for the study of neruoaesthetics.
KQ 1: How can the we depend on the study of neuroscience in a particular area of knowledge to identify the limitations of the knower in that AoK?
Answer from my perspective: by studying neuroaesthetics, the knower could identify many ways in which he or she is limited in understanding and interpreting art, we only know what we know, and by studying what we already know, we can also know what we do not and/or, will not know. For example, artists never work with ultra-violet light, because we sensual perception cannot detect it.
Answer from another perspective: neuroscience is an over-arching branch of a way of knowing that can be applied to all areas of knowledge and serve as a deeper investigation of that field, in looking at how the knowledge appeals to the brain. The study of the study of an area of knowledge can lead not only identification of limitations, but also new ways with which knowledge can be garnered.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140502132458.htm
ReplyDeleteThis article was about the ability of a protein, previously discovered in a disease, to enhance memory and learning. Scientists found recently, that features of fatty acid binding protein 5 (FABP5), usually associated with cancer and psoriasis, have the ability to improve memory and learning functions so well that it may be the answer to a cure for cognitive impairments.
KQ: To what extent can we depend, in science, on the positive aspect of something when it is clear that it also is harmful?
My Perspective: To me, it is clear that everything has its limitations. This protein can be very helpful in the cure for cognitive impairments, yet it is obviously very harmful as it is associated with cancer and psoriasis. This concerns me when debating whether or not to carry forth studies to use it for a cure. What if it causes psoriasis and cancer within those who try the cure? For me, in science, the positive possibilities of something need to outweigh the harmful effects in order for it to be worthwhile. Especially in science, it is very easy for people to die for only the possibility of being cured of something that isn’t that bad anyway.
Another Perspective: If something has a positive effect, why not try it? Often people are looking for an escape or a cure because they are willing to take a risk. In science, people often take the bigger risk when they know they will die without a cure, so who cares if the cure kills them anyway? If there is a possibility of a positive affect it seems ridiculous not to try it. Sure there is a possibility that the harmful aspects will take over, but that is the patient’s decision.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/122564-soul-mates-and-brain-doubles/
ReplyDeleteI listened to a podcast from radiolab that discussed the connection between individuals. The discussion started with the love story from Plato about each of us having another half and that we long to find one another to be whole. This leads to further research done by a neuroscientist, Lauren Silbert, who uses brain scans to see what happens when two people click and really connect. This podcast was really interesting and it was something that I have always wondered about, especially because many people think that it is just fate when two people connect so well, but maybe there is science behind it. Silbert theorized that people with similar past experiences would be more likely to click, but she found that sometimes people who are very good listeners and can understand emotions, can be the ones that you can seem to connect most with.
KQ: To what extent do perspective and emotion affect the relatability of knowledge to the knower in areas of knowledge, such as, the natural sciences?
My perspective: Neuroscientist, Lauren Silbert, designed an experiment where she told people a story about her life and scanned their brains to see how their brains reacted to the story and asked them questions to see how well they were listening. In this case, I think that in order to truly connect and relate to someone or something’s story and experiences, you must have had some kind of experience with a similar situation. No one truly understands completely what another person is going through because we are all different and react to things differently; however, if you have been in a similar situations, there may be a connection to the emotions or the actions relating to the story or experience of other person. On the other hand, I think that when it comes to connecting with people, like when two individual’s personalities just click, that is different than connecting with one story. I think that two people can click and connect with another without having the same experiences or background. They may not connect between one story, but overall, as individuals, they may have a connection.
Other perspective: In Silbert’s experiment, she had one outlier that went completely against what she originally thought about how people with similar experiences or backgrounds would connect to her story. The activity of both of their brains were so similar when the story was being told that it seemed as though they were the same person. However, when they met in person, they had nothing in common. The story was about prom and a relationship. However, the outlier had never gone to prom and went to an all girls school and never had a relationship in high school. From this perspective, it could be thought that to connect with another person’s story or experience, you do not need to have had been in a similar situation. Sometimes people are just very understanding and are great listeners so they can connect deeply with a story. However this does not necessarily mean that the two individuals will have a connection.
Article Link:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/2012/07/30/you-want-that-well-i-want-it-too-the-neuroscience-of-mimetic-desire/
In the article I read, the neuroscience being explained is a phenomenon called mimetic desire. This is often seen as jealousy, the classic example is one person wanting something another person has. While this seems to be jealousy, it is actually due to a certain part of our brain (parietal lobules and promotor areas) which see some other person valuing a certain object, making us think there is something valuable about it. In the experiment, the people tested were shown two pictures of gummy worms, both different colors. Only one of the gummy worms was picked up by a human hand, and almost every time, the person would choose the gummy worm touched by the hand over the one sitting on its own. This proved that when we see someone else choose or enjoy something, we assume that it has more worth, even if it is exactly identical besides the color.
My knowledge question extracted: To what extend do the natural sciences affect our knowledge and understanding of a situation?
When answering for myself, this question has always seemed interesting to me. The fact that our free will may not be “free” at all is an amazing theory, with a lot of room for interpretation. A few weeks ago in English class, our class had a discussion about free will and whether it was completely up to the person or not. The discussion did not include natural sciences, as much as it did philosophy, but I found myself taking a particular stance on it. When my knowledge question is applied to this discussion, our knowledge, or free will, is not up to us at all. It is purely up to scientific trends in a part of the brain that is easily manipulated. Our natural tendencies rise above our choices and take over some basic aspects of our life.
Another opinion could say quite the opposite. Human knowledge could not be affected by natural sciences at all. While we have natural tendencies, we ultimately have the option to make decisions on our own. In this case, free will would be completely up to the person, not their brain chemistry and perception of things around them. When relating this perspective to the study in the article I read, the person was truly responsible for their choice in gummy worm. They could consciously decided to pick the one they wanted, without automatically choosing one due to the brain’s chemistry.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/2014/03/19/are-you-mentally-tough/
ReplyDeleteThe title of this article is “are you mentally tough”. It basically talks about “Mental toughness” which “is commonly used in sports to describe the superior mental qualities of the competitor”. A person’s mental toughness includes four main dimensions: hope, optimism, perseverance, and resilience. The interesting thing I learned from this article that athletes have much higher “mental toughness” than normal people.
KQ: To what extent can human’s emotion affect their physical capability?
Perspective #1:
I always believe that one’s emotion can influence his or her nature significantly. The example in the article clearly shows the close relationship between emotion and physical capability which can be seen as the nature of human being. The reason of why athletes achieve more physical success than normal people is that they have “mental toughness” which pushes themselves to practice harder. I also have experiences to convince myself to run longer time. When I had a determined mind and told myself I would get rid of the fat on my legs, I had more motivation to run one more mile. That works the same way to the real athletes. When people are not willing to challenge their physiological limit, they would never become better and get stronger than other real athletes who are mentally tough enough to endure the tiresome and the pain which practice brings. There is also another anecdote that I have heard of that a mom lifted up a car when his son was under the wheels. The mom’s emotion which is the combination of fear, anxiety, and love lead to some miracle. There are tremendous scientific studies show that human emotions can always cause changes to their bodies. In addition to the real life situations, I totally believe that human’s emotion dominates their physical capability.
Perspective #2
The influence that one’s emotion is able to bring to his or her physical capability is really limited. Although one can force himself to practice harder and become stronger, if he is short, he still would not be able to jump as high as a tall person. People can always improve themselves if they have great “mental toughness”, but they may still be bad when they are compared to other people. There is a Chinese idiom saying that a camel which is dead from hunger is bigger than a horse. This shows the unconquerable physiological limitation that no matter how tough a person’s mind is, he would not be able to change the fact.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/2013/07/09/the-neuroscience-of-social-influence/
ReplyDeleteMy article comes from the Scientific American website, and the title of it is The Neuroscience of Social Influence. It was written on July 9th, 2013 by Scott Barry Kaufman, Scientific Director of The Imagination Institute and a researcher in the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania. In this article, Kaufman analyzes a study done by Emily Falk, Matthew Lieberman, and other colleagues on how the brain works when communicating their ideas to others. In this study undergraduate students were split into two groups- inters and producers. The job of the interns was to watch videos on television show ideas, and recommend the some of them to the producers. The job of the producers was to listen to the interns’ recommendations and from there, further recommend specific television ideas. The brains of the interns were scanned by an fMRI while they watched the video. From the parts of the brain working in the fMRI’s, scientists predicted which idea would be recommended. In Kaufman’s analysis of this study, he brings forth the idea that many things play into Social Influence. For example, the interns’ personal preference of a certain idea, their thought of how the producers would like the idea, and their communication skills all played roles in the ideas that they recommended to the producers.
This article brings forth the knowledge question “ To what extent does social influence depend on each knower and their individual cognitive skills?”
From my perspective, social influence definately depends on cognitive skills to a certain extent, but it is more dependent on each knowers personal preference. For example, if one of the interns in this experiment really liked one of the television ideas presented in the video, they would most likely recommend it to the producer. I believe that in this case the personal preference of the intern is more of a factor in their recommendation to the producer than the interns’ thoughts of the producers’ preference. In other words, the intern thinks about what what they like in an idea more that what they think the producer will like. This comes from the human tendency to put themselves in front of others. Also, an intern is hired to help the producer make decisions, and so their opinions are needed and expected from the producer.
From the perspective of a businessman on the other hand, they might say that social influence depends most on the knowers’ individual cognitive skills. A lawyer or a salesperson, who has more argumentative skills and has more of an ability to stimulate others will be more successful in communicating to their producer why their idea is correct, and why the producer should recommend it. Someone who is not a salesperson or lawyer and really likes their idea will not be as successful because they do not know how to express their ideas to the producer as well. No matter how much they like it, they will not have the same cognitive skills to persuade their producer.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/06/01/can-neuroscience-cure-people-of-faith-in-god-what-about-faith-in-neuroscience/
ReplyDeleteThis article, though very short was really interesting to me. What caught my attention at first was the title, Can Neuroscience Cure People of Faith in God? What about Faith in Neuroscience?, not just because it included ways of knowing in the title, but because the idea that religion is something that can be “cured” as if it is an illness. In brief summary, this article focuses on a specific brain researched named Kathleen Taylor that has basically stated that brain researches are learning so much about the “neural basis for fundamentalism” or in other words what makes people believe in relation literally within the nervous system. She goes on to say that the amount of information that researchers are learning may even cured from fundamentalism. This researcher believes that they can learn enough about this certain neural basis to allow the treatment of a mental disturbance who believe in certain cults for example. The author of the article is obviously opposed to this woman’s ideas and wishes that through the research she is learning and the mastery of neuroscience, she can be cured from having excessive faith in neuroscience.
KQ: To what extent can faith in human sciences affect one’s knowledge of different perspectives?
I believe that faith in human sciences can play a large role in perspectives and one’s openness or understanding of different perspectives. Based on my personal culture of being very fair and open minded, I believe that though I may have faith in something, there are other people with different opinions that I recognize but may not believe in. For example, I believe in the theory of evolution, however, I am aware that some people strictly believe in a God and in some cases this means that they do not believe in this theory. Faith in human science’s can affect one’s knowledge of different perspectives at different levels, depending on the extent at which the knower believes in the human sciences.
From the perspective of a person who is older than I am, and is a professional in the scientific world, human sciences can strongly affect their view on different perspectives. For example, the woman in this article, Kathleen Taylor. Kathleen is strongly devoted to her neuroscience studies, and thus fails to realize that just because some people do not agree with her views (they are more religious), does not mean there is necessarily something mentally wrong with them. Kathleen’s devoted faith in her natural sciences limits her ability to understand the other perspectives which most people in the world carry. In this case, she does not understand or is not open to the idea of religion not being a treatable mental illness.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/young-musicians-reap-long-term-neuro-benefits/
ReplyDeleteThe article is from the radio which called the Scientific American 60 Seconds Mind. The article introduces that the people who played piano or other instrument in their young age get long-term neuro benefit from it. They have better understand of other people’s speech, because they perceived fast-changing sounds when they played piano or other instruments. They respond to the speech sound faster even they do not practice piano or other instruments for 40 years.
My knowledge question is: to what extent does perception shape knowledge?
Perspective 1: From my own experience, I disagree with the article’s opinion. I had been played piano since I was 4 year old. I gave up practice when I was in elementary school. I learned piano for years, but I still had difficult time to understand than other people do, also, I did not sing well. Therefore, in this case, I do not think perception shape knolwdge.
Perspective 2: To a certain extent, perception shapes knowledge especially in case of science. Scientists had to observe thousands of experiments to prove the hypothesis. Extends to geography, Christopher Columbus found America so that strongly proved the earth is round. If Columbus never discovered America, people may not sure if the earth is square or sphere.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2014/04/whats-it-consult-big-bang-theory
ReplyDeleteThis article is about a conversation that was held with David Saltzberg, a scientist consultant in the show “Big Bang”, and a professor at UCLA. This article talks about the different ways in which the portrayal of science has changed and the different advices for scientists who would like to break in the field of advertising science shows. What I found as the most interesting thing in this article is the upcoming big balloon launch in Antarctica that might serve as evidence of the Big Bang Theory. This balloon is expected to look for “neutrinos hitting the Antarctic ice” that would help the researchers to learn more about the “origin of cosmic waves”. And just as David said, the big balloon will explode and might have no end just like the universe.
Knowledge Question: To what extent is evidence of knowledge through sensory perception needed in the learning process of that particular knowledge concept?
In my perspective, I think that it is crucial for us to have evidence directly through our perceptions in order to learn, and understand more about certain things. In addition to that, we often tend to doubt our knowledge understanding sometimes because we have not yet seen how that knowledge functions or how it is applied. For example, as a Christian, I used to doubt the existence of God sometimes because I have never seen him, smelled him, or touched him. This would sometimes arouse doubts in me about God’s existence. Had I directly seen or heard him, I would have known him better or understand him better. Just like the Big Bang, the researchers want to know and understand it better through seeing the big balloon explosion.
In another perspective, one could say that it is not necessary to have sensory perception in order to have better evidence of a particular knowledge because faith alone is enough. The faith that someone has, alone serves as an evidence for his knowledge understanding. For example, Christians believe that having faith is the only way to understand better their God. They believe that with more belief, comes more understanding of the functioning of their God and the plans he has for them.
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2013/07/three-seconds-poems-cubes-and-the-brain.html
ReplyDeleteThis article focused on the way our brains perceive and structure psychological time. The article also discussed on how the brain assigns and integrates an order to stimuli while conveying to us “a sense of subjective past and subjective present”. The term ‘now’, is perceived differently according to our different perspectives that classify time intervals differently. The way our brains integrate stimuli is different. Everybody has a different in which they define the “now”. Any sense we perceive is classified as “the past” according to physical time. Research has proved that our brains integrate our subjective temporal reality in approximately three seconds. The article gave an example of how people believe that food can be safely consumed if it has stayed less than three seconds on the floor, as an application of the “three second rule”.
I think that part of what was mentioned in the article about the “three seconds rule” is true. When I do not get what somebody is telling me while speaking to them in ‘Kinyarwanda’, I use the present tense when I am immediately asking them to repeat. This appears as “what you say?” Instead of “what did you say”. This means that the ‘three second rule’ applies to me as well!
KQ 1: To what extent is the interpretation and understanding of a knowledge influenced by the different ways in which we perceive physical time?
According to my perspective, the different ways in which we perceive time, contribute to the different ways in which we interpret and understand knowledge. For example, if the term ‘now’ is interpreted differently, then the interpretation of knowledge can be different when it applied in describing that knowledge. This might sound a little bit confusing but let me give an example used in the bible. The bible mentions that Jesus will come back soon. But the word ‘soon’ is interpreted differently by people. Some people think that Jesus will never come back since many years have passed without his return and some other think that he might come in future. In this case, we can see that the different ways in which people perceive time results to the different ways in which they understand knowledge concept.
From another perspective, time does not really change knowledge since many people agree on time as a universal concept. If people have always agreed on historical events and yet they relate to time, the interpretation of time does not matter in this case but instead the knowledge concept alone matters. Therefore, we can say that physical time that is used by everybody, makes the interpretation of knowledge almost similar.