Question for Week 2

Find 2 real-world corollaries to what happens in The Handmaid’s Tale. Provide links to news or journal articles and explain (in detail, by chapter and page number) to the sections of the story that you are comparing them to. (Note: These don't have to be exact, but there should be enough in common that people who have read the book will instantly recognize the similarities.)

Week 1 Responses.

Ch. 1
One thing that makes science comforting to some is the proof that it provides in its explanation. Someone will observe something about their surroundings, they come up with a hypothesis and test it. It continues to be tested until it is proven wrong. Until that point we have theorys, laws, and facts which help us govern and understand our environments. This level of being able to prove our ideas in comforting in being able to comprehend the substance of the idea and are rewarded with the feeling of better understanding our world. But when an idea is presented that goes beyond anything that can be proven such as the supernatural or spiritual world some people tend to get very frustrated and defensive about what they believe to be truth. With science we are able to construct something tangible, something that we can grasp and feel pretty confident in that our observations have some level of accuracy. It seems to be that when some people get so caught up in their "beliefs" they tend to lose some level of rationality in trying to defend that which cannot be scientifically proven. The threat of being proven wrong creates an overwhelming frustration in the person and can result in ignorance to reality. The idea that both the scientific and the supernatural could simultaneously exist together doesn't even phase them. As a result, there are people like the DI, who overlook the possibility of this co-existence and want to replace all of what science has become, with their personal beliefs. After reading this chapter, the thing that stuck out to me the most was the importance of continually challenging ourselves to explore both new and already existent ideas. It seems strange to me to be so confident in believing that which you know, is all there is. The unknown is infinite, and there are endless things to learn about within that realm.

Ch. 12
It is kind of funny to me that no matter how hard we try to make life easier on ourselves, things only get more complicated. Steven Darksyde presents a very interesting 'progression' of technological advances starting from a thing as simple as black powder ending with the possibility of another Great Dying. Its scary to think that despite the rate of depletion is continually getting worse our government regressing in efforts to prevent it from getting any worse. Darksyde references the Clear Skies Act of 2003, saying that it "weakened existing emission restrictions, delayed or canceled previously established deadlines for compliance with new emissions restrictions".(194) I cannot understand why our government is not taking more drastic measures in order to prevent the situation from getting any worse. It's a frustrating thing to deal with and it is very easy to sense the authors frustrations with the topic as well. It makes me wonder why there is not more being done. Because we have not taken precautions in the past when creating in new technologies, we have created a situation that now seems too large to correct. In all the efforts that can be made, at least we can try prolong the ozone's hole from getting any larger by creating an awareness on just how serious this issue is, which is what I feel Darksyde is trying to do.

Week 1's Question
Literature allows for a more open opinion on specific issues. When someone is writing a piece of literature, they do not have to follow any sort of method in order to present their ideas. They can freely voice what they want to say and arrange it in a manner that allows them to prove their point, much easier than someone who is writing a science journal could. Writing in a journal of science would be much more restricting but at the same time would probably be much more realible than something primarily swayed by someone's personal opinion. Someone writing for science is more aware of presenting just the facts and displaying a means of backing up their claims. Despite their differences, science and literature have a nice relationship together in that the two together balance each other nicely. What one lacks, the other possesses. When someone uses both of these approaches accurately, the result could be very effective.

Answer to question 1

Science and literature deal with abstract thoughts in different ways. Literature is a form of human expression that explores ideas, emotions, and feelings. Science uses observations and experimentation to prove hypotheses. While literature is divided into fiction or non-fiction, there is no clear-cut division like that in science. If you think of science in terms on literature, science is all "non-fiction".

Science and literature feed off of each other. A scientific discovery can inspire a work of literature, and a literary work can make a scientist think of a new hypothesis. An entire literary genre was born out of this symbiotic relationship. In science fiction, literature puts an imaginative spin on scientific ideas and speculates about what science will bring in the future.

Chapter 12 response

In the 12th chapter of Darksyde's eBook, he explores the downsides that come along with the benefits of technology. He focuses more on the downsides of technology, but I think he has a good reason for doing this. We all know about the benefits of technology. However, we often don't stop and question wether or not there is a down side to the good things that we get out of technology. Darksyde mentions the downsides of various technologies in the past and present, and speculates on future prolems technology might bring about.

A professor of mine once described technology as "a two-edged sword." It has the power to better lives, but it also has the power to destroy lives. I think that Darksyde makes the same point in this chapter, but doesn't emphasize how it betters lives, especially when he speaks about the Enlightenment. He gives a very biased version of the Enlightenment. At no point in the chapter does he mention that the Enlightenment was named because of intellectuals who emphasized the value of reason above all else. Rather, he focuses on warlords, and flippantly claims that the Enlightenment was "so named because armies equipped with the new weapondry fanned out. . .to 'enlighten' their adversaries about which deity's chosen Boss was now running the show." I think his one-sided claims make it clear that he should stick to science, and leave history to the professionals.

Chapter 1 response

In the first chapter, Steven Darksyde asks the fundamental question: "What is science?" He answers it very simply, in a way that someone like me could understand. Considering that I'm an English major who hasn't taken a science course since high school, this is quite an accomplishment. He states that science is simply the process of observing, hypothesizing, testing, making conclusions, and repeating as many times as necessary. Later on, he makes the interesting point that though logic plays a role in science, imagination plays an equally important role.

Scientific methodology is a way to explain things that we cannot fully understand--things like gravity and the laws of thermodynamics. However, that is only true for physical things that we cannot explain. Supernatural claims, be they as radical as UFO sightings or as commonplace as belief in a higher power, are not scientifically testable. I agree with this distinction that the author makes. I also like how he makes a point of saying that science is neutral--neither good nor evil.

Week One

For our first reading, The Gift that Keeps on Giving, I learned science means everything to human life. The portion of the chapter that I could relate to the most would be the scientific methodology and the light bulb. Methodology is pretty easy to understand; one cannot just eliminate a theory just because one feels it is impossible. One has consider every option whether it sounds logical or not. Methodology is also the easiest because it is the method most humans are initially taught to use in order to solve a problem. Anti-science and pseudoscience hits close to home because, like Jennifer, I am a strong believer in the Bible and science. It is hard for the two to not contradict each other. That is why science is so controversial to Christianity and vice versa. However, like many, I depend on both because your faith can only take you so far. Sometimes, you need science to assist in learning.

In the second reading, Shattered Skies, at first, I did not understand why he started off the chapter with the question “Why a soda fizzes a lot more when it is warm?” This reading hit home base for me. I love chemistry and since I have taken both of the introductory chemistry classes and both of the organic chemistry courses at Clemson, I knew that when Darksyde started discussing the refrigerator and dichlorodifluoromethane, it was going to lead to some sort of environment issue. However, I had no clue that he was going to link his wife’s question to all of issues he talked about, especially to global warming. I found that quite hilarious, yet amazing.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Steven Darksyde touched on the fundamental differences between science and literature and what they contribute to each other. What I learned from The Gift that Keeps on Giving is that literature is a way of communication. However, a person cannot understand scientific literature unless they understand the science. When science is used in literature, it allows people who are outside of the scientific world to have a look in to it; scientific literature gives way to understanding to others who may not have the same ideas or might be hopeful of educating or enlightening themselves.

Literature does keep us “in the know.” But how can people be “in the know” if they do not comprehend what is being discussed in the literature? Darksyde shared with us that the scientists that write scientific literature have invested lots of time and money into their science. That is why when they publish their ideas and methods, it is in a language that normal people would not understand. But in order for a person to understand to the fullest extent of what the scientists are talking about, that person would also have to invest time and money in the same science. I believe that science and literature work as a team. This team is successful only if the readers are educated enough to grasps the concepts. This prevents misinterpretations of what the scientific authors implied.

1st Reading Question

The fundamental differences between science and literature are basic. Science supposedly is truthful, provable, and beneficial to the population, whereas literature has the possibility of being the same as or opposite of science. Science is man's way to explore and discover where literature is man's way to explain and dream. Science nor literature could exist without each other but literature seems to be the fuel behind science, the dream of what might be and why it should be discovered or investigated.

Answer to Question 1

"What are the fundamental differences between science and literature, and what do they have to 'say' or contribute to each other."

Science is based in logic and the things that can be proven. There's also that darn Peer Review that you have to go through in order to prove your theories.

Literature subscribes to the "Star Trek" form of science, otherwise known as "metaphysics." It's basically science that is just theory, cant be proven that this time, but cant be disproven also. It rocks. Most metaphysics come from imagination as well, the same as literature and most literature uses metaphysics in order to further the story.

Eventually, the literary metsphysics will be proven, or MADE so that it can be proven by altering the basic idea of the metsphysics in order to become science.

Response to Chapter 12: Shattered Skies

This chapter was a little slow to the point and actually quite depressing when it finally got to it. The basic premise is that the industrial drive of humanity is "causing" the same thing that "will eventually kill us." The start of industry with all of the items that the Grand Poobaahs of the Royal Water Buffalos had to have escalated to the point where the creation of hydrocarbons and CFC's will eventually cause the Great Dying...again. Good times. Depressing, not "proven" depending on who you talk to or what political party you are a part of, and open to debate. But hey, we've all gotta go sometime.

Response to Chapter One

I find it interesting that "scientific methodology" seems to me to be nothing more than, what most of us would call, Common Sense. A light bulb ges out; you replace it. Simple, easy and painless. However, you may not always be right. The chapter also expands on this that there may be other factors at work, but as long as the end result is the same (the light coming back on,) no one really gives it a second thought. Peer Review is something, to me, that most people seem to dread. Not many people enjoy it when they are proven wrong. I know I don't. My ex always seemed to get some perverse pleasure whenever she had to correct me on something.

The basic question the Chapter asks is: What is Science? Science is basically something that you can test using some form of method, whether it be scientific or simply based on faith. Science is also a flexible "object." Take magic. Back in the day, if a person could do something that no one could explain or duplicate, it was called magic. Magic is just science that can't be explained...yet. This is the "gift that keeps on giving." The ever explanding knowledge of magic, science and the universe around us.

The First Week

In our assignments, we were advised to read from the e-book, Cosmos You Are Here, sections of articles dealing with the dangerous of science if it is not heeded. The first article, labeled The Gift that Keeps on Giving, logically dispenses the reason as to why science should be heeded over the inane babbling that are preached without proof. It gives the example of Trofim Lysenko, a Stalinist "scientist", who persuaded the communist state to follow a direction of production that had no proof or fact other than what he himself had "thought" about. The article warns us about this in that correct science can only be discovered through an exact method.

In the second article, labeled Shattered Skies, the author similarly talks about the advance of anti-science even in the face of scientific studies that have innumerable facts. The author develops his case using the development of CFC from the early idea's of a piston. I think that he stresses the fact that science, no matter how many scientists who choose to state otherwise, is driven by the human desire of greed. This greed clouds our vision in such a way that lobbists of anti-science cannot and will not realize the fact that the science that once helped us has been proven to be harmful to us because they are entrenched in the belief that all science is good and should be used to benefit humanity.

In both articles, the authors stress, I believe, the fact that science should be believed because of the facts supporting it and not because we in our hearts want to believe a certain thing. Religion might be good and well in giving us the peace of mind that we all need but it is science that, in the end, affects us in reality and thus we need to set our goals in not what we "think" is the correct course of action but instead what we can prove to be the correct course of action.

---

In response to the question proposed in web-blog, literature is what is used by scientists and those who understand science to describe the goal of a particular technology and the ideas behind them in layman's terms so that all of us may share the benefit of that particular technology. Literature, however, since it is written by the ones who have a general idea of science, drives science to new goals that science needs to accomplish in order to make these goals realistic. Literature, written by thinkers, are the creative force behind what we are aiming for when we research and study science. Da Vinci, a strong believer in science and the scientific method, wrote and drew in his books his designs for the future of science and, I think, that only through reading such books like these that are based themselves on the science of their time, can we know what goals we need to achieve in future research.

Chapter 12, Shattered Skies

In chapter 12,shattered skies, I was amazed as the chapter developed. The chapter began and ended talking about a warm diet soda. I never thought of all the events that had to take place in order for us to a have a cold diet soda. Something so innocent to us, being behind the depletion of the ozone was surprising. The fact that it was 'Black Powder' that lead to cannons and guns which lead to piston powered engines which lead to cooling systems such as AC and refrigerators is just amazing to me. More so that all the good was at such a high price of deaths and environmental problems. I think that when the US came together to protect the ozone years ago, it showed the strength of the US. Now the US should not start to fail the earth by being relaxed on the laws that can save it from further disasters. The past shows that one small item can change some many lives and events, so I can only imagine the changes yet to come but at what cost to the earth.

Chapter 1, The gift that keeps on giving

In chapter 1, the gift that keeps on giving, many types of science are discussed. Methodology is very easy to understand since it is used by everyone, everyday without even thinking about the process. It seems to be the only science in which when you are finished, you know the answer except for the supernatural ideas. The anti-science and pseudoscience also are very easy to understand because even as in the methodology someone is always trying to disprove ideas. It seems to me that if someone has the evidence to prove their theories than that is science and others using text to prove ideas is nothing more than a wishful way to confuse the public. I have a strong belief in the Bible but also in science. I feel that sometimes you take faith to lead your ideas but the proof has to be able to show you the right way even if it means completely starting over with your beliefs.

Question about postings

I got this question via email, but it should be here, because everyone needs to know:
Q: In the blogger do we start our own entries to respond to your
question and to log our weekly ideas or do we instead add comments to
your entries?

A: Make your own entries, unless you're responding to what a classmate wrote (Not for your own entries.) This is important because at the end of the course, I'll sort them by name in order to grade you (and you don't want me to miss any. :-))

1st Reading Question:

What are the fundamental differences between science and literature, and what do they have to "say" or contribute to each other.

Remember, the way this works is that you do your responses to the readings first; **Then** answer the question (after thinking about the readings on their own terms first.)

Welcome!

Here is the weblog we'll be using for the course. Please post your weblog responses here.