Science Today (for session 1)
I gladly believed, that science was a means to obtain and keep knowledge without problems
beyond research. But in the recent time I successively noticed that a lot of topics, that
are in the focus of scientific research, are politically and emotionally charged, and a
neutral or somewhat objective discussion is made difficult. The last this became very
clear to me was, when a course I attended, discussed the Topic of learned and inherited
skills. Some students were deeply convinced, that there is no such thing as talent and
talent is a result of environmental influence. While others said that the isolated
environment could not affect a person to become a contributing member of society (since
it was to complex). Adding to that it was alleged, that the assumption; that there only
is environmental influence directed at a person would also mean, that there is now growth
on a person’s personal level because everything had to be considered a reaction to outer
circumstances rendering every human action a reaction. Deducing that there could not have
been human development at all. In the end, it seems very difficult to prove one side or
the others, while both sides have potential worldviews they imply. And since no
standpoint can be verified or falsified the discussion and my confusion will continue.
I (gladly believed,) [T/Asp;P - ^ used to gladly believe] that science was a means (to obtain and keep) [Gr - ^ of obtaining and keeping] knowledge without problems beyond [E,coh - those involved in doing research. But in (the) [no det] recent time I [T/Asp - ^ have successively noticed that a lot of topics (,) [P] that are (in) [no prep] the focus of scientific research (,) [P] are politically and emotionally charged, and a neutral or somewhat objective discussion (is) [coh,foc ^ of those topics has been ] made difficult. The last (this became very clear to me was,) [E,coh,M,W+ - ^ instance in which this became abundantly clear to me was] when a course (I attended, discussed the Topic of learned and) [E,coh,M,W+ - ^ I was attending turned its focus to the contrast between learned and] inherited skills. Some students were deeply convinced (,) [P] that there is no such thing as talent (a) [P,Gr,St - ^; ] talent is (a) [det - ^ the] result of environmental influence. (While others) [E,Syn,Gr - ^ Others, meanwhile,] said that the isolated environment could not (affect) [W,M - induce] a person to become a contributing member of society ((since it was to complex.)) [P: no parens; W - ^ since it was too complex]. (Adding to that) [E;P - ^ Furthermore,] it was alleged (,) [P] that the assumption (; that there only is environmental influence directed at a person would also mean, that there is now growth on a person’s personal level because everything had) [P, E,M,coh,Gr,foc - ^ that one’s environment is the singular causal force behind our talents and indeed our very personalities would imply that one can experience no personal growth, as that supposed growth would have] to be considered a reaction to outer circumstances [P - ^ ,] rendering every human action a reaction. (Deducing that there could not have
ReplyDeletebeen human development at all.) [W,W+,M] In the end, it seems very difficult to prove one side or the (others) [WF - ^ other], (while both sides have potential worldviews they imply) [M,coh,Gr - as both sides would seem to have their origins not in empirical data, but in the differing world views of their respective adherents]. And since no standpoint can be verified or falsified [P - ^,] the discussion and my confusion will continue.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletef
ReplyDeleteI used to gladly believe, that science was a means of obtaining and keeping knowledge without problems beyond those involved in doing research. But in recent time I have successively noticed that a lot of topics that are the focus of scientific research are politically and emotionally charged, and a neutral or somewhat objective discussion of those topics has been made difficult. The last instance in which this became abundantly clear to me was, when a course I was attending turned its focus to the contrast between learned and inherited skills. Some students were deeply convinced that there is no such thing as talent; talent is the result of environmental influence. Others, meanwhile, said that the isolated environment could not induce a person to become a contributing member of society, since it was too complex. Furthermore, it was alleged that the assumption ( [P, that one’s environment is the singular causal force behind our talents and indeed our very personalities would imply that one can experience no personal growth, as that supposed growth would have to be considered a reaction to outer circumstances, rendering every human action a reaction. In the end, it seems very difficult to prove one side or the other, as both sides would seem to have their origins not in empirical data, but in the differing world views of their respective adherents. And since no standpoint can be verified or falsified, the discussion and my confusion will continue.
ReplyDelete