Blog 1

In many of my past classes we’ve talked about how science is a field of study that answers questions with more questions. To be a good scientist you have to be okay with not having all the answers and good at asking questions. A good scientist wonders and question differently than everyone else. Even this this being a popular topic discussed I’ve never made the direct connection that science is a subsection of philosophy but it completely makes sense. When I read that PhD is a Doctorate of Philosophy I was taken aback but not surprised. I gasped while reading it and went off on a tangent with my roommate about how it was unexpected yet totally obvious at the same time.
            I’ve chosen pursue a degree in the science field and like every college student I’ve gone through a quarter-life crisis wondering if I’ve chosen the right field of study and if I’ll be a good scientist. The part that every made me question myself is the third part in Darwin’s quote-discovery. Because of this I found reading about how discovery is not so simple and has high standards to be “real” interesting. I also enjoyed reading about the other two parts that make up curiosity-truth and knowledge. I feel an instinct for these as did Darwin. I wonder if this instinct is an instinct that everyone feels or if this is an instinct that unique in individuals making some people more fit to be scientist.  

            As an undergrad student I’ve taken many classes that have been half engineering students and half science students. I also changed my major from the College of Engineer to a program that differed by only 6 classes in Lyman Briggs College. Due to the similarity in education I haven’t noticed much of a difference between the two and have considered engineering to be a science. These two fields can overlap but differentiating them by saying science is discovering new truths while engineering is building new things couldn’t have been explained better.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog 10

We read about “the capacity to be alone”, a trait that I see in my self and never really thought of it being important or a skill . This trait is also pretty common in the scientific  related   career   fields . Often times this capability is seen as being shy, social awkward, or introverted. These are not the same qualities but are often times grouped together by nonscientist when judging scientist. When scientist are alone we aren’t just hiding from people, we are in our own heads. We are thinking about everything, observing and questions the things we see, and being carious about the world. As a female scientist I can’t imagine growing up a society that thought I was unusual for females to have intellectual desires and enjoying learning things. I get annoyed with the inequality of women in science in the year 2017 but a hundred years ago it was a hundred times worse. The fact there was only two university’s where women could get an education blows my mind. I’m grateful that I was
Read more

Blog 7

I find reading Aristotle and other philosophy writings very difficult and I don't know if I understood any of this. The writing is not straight forward or clear so hopefully I didn't miss-understand any of this. I think Aristotle's is trying to get across the point that everything we do in life is to aim for happiness or to be good. I think pretty much everyone would say their goal in life is to be happy but everyone has a different definition of happiness. Aristotle believes that one’s happiness can’t be measured or reflected on until ones death. I think this is because life has ups and downs and is constantly changing until its over. People can be happy or sad and different time periods of their life but once they are dead society can then look at their life as a whole and say if that person was happy or not. Maybe I think of happiness as something different because I don’t understand this concept. Yes, I think that it’s easier to be able to look at someone’s life as a w
Read more

Blog 9

In this class we've talked a lot about curiosity and truth as trait need by scientist. Skepticism sort of connects the both. You can have only one or two of these virtues but generally they go hand in hand. To know if something is true you need to be skeptical. We cant just assume everything to be the true because obviously that's not the case. To be a curious person you must also be curious to find the truth, which would make you a skeptic. Theories that have more proof don't need as much skeptics. For example, I don't think there needs to be skeptics of evolution or the force of gravity. These are two theories that have been time and time again supported with evidence to be considered facts. There would need to be more skeptics if there was to be a new drug discovered. If one researcher found a drug that he or she claims to cure a disorder we should not blindly believe this. Until there has been enough evidence with experiments to be proven as facts other scientist s
Read more