The Value of Science Socratic Seminar

Response:
Richard Freyman stresses the fact that science cannot always solve social issues, as they are unbiased and do not take sides. He also mentions the problem with science is that you never know if it is a solid fact. Science is always neutral, the way it is used determines its "moral value", "To every man is given the key to heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell". Freyman later adds on that it is a scientist's responsibility to discover the unknown and research and explore the mysteries of life. He states that although scientists develop breakthroughs in technology, life, health and so on, all of these discoveries do not come with instructions. We utilize these innovations and inventions in whatever way we choose, therefore science and scientists do not influence whether things are good or evil.


I disagree with the thought that science is not influenced by good or evil, because I believe that they often have direct relations to each other. For there must be purposes for why some things are made or researched (that can influence the values of society). For example, contrasting "discovering a cure for cancer" with "weapons for made for destruction". Nevertheless, there are definitely occasions where things are discovered without any intentions, but then are used in a bad/good way.


Vocabulary:
Dispel- make (a doubt, feeling, or belief) disappear
Negate- nullify; make ineffective
Sobriety- the state of being sober


Questions:
Freyman states that all scientists have a lot of experience with doubt, uncertainty and ignorance. He suggests that whatever the result will be to a problem, the scientist will always have either, if not all three. Do you agree with this? If so, is it then safe to say that scientific facts may possibly be false?


Freyman states that although most of humanity longs for a peaceful world, he ponders if a perfect world will result in boredom which then leads to something similar to a dystopian society. To what extent do you agree?


Should science require instruction, as in the reason for its development (good or bad)? or as Freyman said, "morally neutral" (not taking any sides)?

Socratic Seminar - Self-Respect

In this article Joan Didion explains how self-respect is greatly influenced by discipline and being able to accept yourself even when others do not. She does a good job to support her points, however I think she is blurring the line between self-respect and self-confidence. In my opinion, self-confidence is much more vulnerable to influence from others than self-respect is. Respecting oneself is how your treat yourself depending on what you believe is deserved and and the level self worth.


Didion's "big idea" seems to arise from when she supposedly had minimal self-respect from not making it into her fraternity. She focuses on the idea that in order to achieve self-respect, there must be discipline, as in to not discourage oneself (I feel this statement is more relatable to self confidence). 


There are two statements saying "people with self respect have the courage of their mistakes" and " the willingness to accept responsibilities for one's own life -- is the source from which self respect springs", which I truly agree with.


Is there a real definition of self-respect? Because all people will have a different perspective on what it is by reflecting on their own lives.


Can self respect be influenced by others (as Didion stated) or is it solely based on how you accept your failures and accomplishments?


YEE YEE YEE. so thats what i think :) goodnightt everybodyy
love stooph