Star Trek!

The first part of Menagerie was very entertaining. Notice how the series represents what is considered technology at the time: Flashing lights and numerous buttons. Futuristic clothes consist of a fitting uniform with either a blue or gold top. What aspects of the Star Trek universe do you find intriguing, when compared with today's standards, or interesting by itself, and why?

Regrets

At the moment I can't think of what to name the title, I'll edit it once I think of something.

Anyways, looking at the novel, Frankenstein, we see that Victor Frankenstein crosses the boundaries of science by bringing an inanimate corpse to life, only to fear the creature he brought to back to life.

Which raises an question that always bugged me: Do scientists regret the decisions they make? For example, the group of researchers who created the atomic bomb, they knew the destructive force the bombs would produce and still worked on it, two of them were dropped on Japan and many lives were lost. After such events, do you think they regretted the creation of such a destructive weapon? Or do they truly believe that what did was right?

2 Down, 1 To Go

After finally finishing the first two novels that we have to read this semester, The Lost World and The Calcutta Chromosome, which of the two novels did you enjoy more? In retrospect, both novels addressed science differently and each author took a different look at it and approached it differently. In terms of science--since that's what this course is based upon--which novel do you think better incorporated science into the main argument and why/how? Personally, I found The Lost World to be more captivating, because even though it addressed science, it managed to still keep a fictional feel to it, whereas I simply just felt less interested as I read The Calcutta Chromosome. I have also read previous novels by Doyle and I believe him to be a better author, o my opinion may be biased.

Not knowing=Knowledge?

In the Calcutta Chromosome there is this secret group of people/religion that believes the not knowing something is knowledge and that by knowing something you change it and therefore do not really know it. There was also that clip on the double slit experiment in which the particle stopped behaving like a wave when there was an observer. Do you believe that if you know something you change it? Is it the actual object that changes or is it you who changes and views the object differently? What are your takes on knowledge? Also if things we think of as non-living and inanimate like atoms change because of an observer does that mean that our definition of cognitive beings should change?

Determinism

We discussed today in class that sometimes, the scientist is the one being controlled by a more powerful entity. If we are all scientists, this entity could be recognized as fate, which governs all of our behavior from the time we are born to whatever death we shall suffer.
Ever heard of scientific determinism? There are many types [of determinism], but as a basic overview in this one, everything in this world can be determined from previous variables. Think of this as a giant mathematical model that can determine the future with past and present variables. Basically, everything in the past has a direct, causal relationship with everything in the future.

This has a profound series of implications. If an all powerful entity was governing our lives down to the smallest detail, how could there be free will? Wouldn't it just be an illusion, since an action would just be an Effect of an earlier Cause? By infinite ascent from the present, it would go all the way back to the beginning of time. We, then, are just variables in an impossibly larger plan by this great entity.

What do you think?

Science's Relationship to Murphy's Law

Alright, for those who don't know, Murphy's Law states: anything that can go wrong, WILL go wrong. Now that's out of the way, let's go to the topic at hand.

Science is a theme that's found in practically EVERYTHING (e.g. books, movies, games, etc.), but at the same time, a lot of those science related always invoke Murphy's law. For example, in the movie, Terminator 3, the moment Skynet is operational, it causes a global armageddon, or how about the game, Resident Evil, the scientists were working a virus when an accident occurs and turns everyone into flesh-eating zombies. The concept is also seen in Doyle's novel, The Lost World, like when Gomez destroys the bridge that traps the travelers on the plateau.

So my question is this: What is it about the sci-fi genre in the media and their constant application of Murphy's Law? Is it because of the fact that it adds a level of excitement to the audience and helps draw them in, or the fact that society these days feel as if nothing is interesting unless a little action is added in the mix?

lalalalala

Human cloning: what is it that forces scientists to believe in its majesty? Proponents of science believe that human cloning is the fait accompli of everything science related; the idea that a human can be completely replicated is remarkable, and scientists cherish the concept of such hardwork in stem cell research and the beneficial results which are derived from it. On the other hand, those who oppose cloning are against its affects on society. They feel its harmful and something that could eventually cause catastrophic results. Do you support the idea that scientists should in fact use their knowledge and power to try and enhance the world by cloning humans, or do you agree that scientists should not be allowed to play the role of God and that their knowledge and power could in fact bring harm to the world?