LB492

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

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

I picked to read Gertrude Elion’s obituary because her career is basically my life goal. She was a biochemist and a pharmacologist. I thought there would be  similarities  to Darwin's obituaries however that wasn't  the  case   Elion’s obituary wasn’t anything like Darwin’s. I’m curious to know if it’s different because of the time, the fact she’s a female, the field she worked in, or some other reason. Darwin’s were more personal and talked of his character, whereas Elion’s was just listing off achievements. There was only one single sentence that talked about anything other than scientific achievements and its says “Ms. Elion was noted for her precise work, intellectual brilliance and ability to work with others.” I’m sure that more than this could have been said or at least elaborated on. I also felt like she was undermined when they brought up how she was always one step behind Dr. Hitching. She had worked with Hitching for decades but he died a year before she did. I hope

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

In the second half of Darwin’s autobiography the first thing I found notable was he was willing to try alternative therapies for his illness . Even though he was skeptical he was willing to try  hydropathy therapy . This showed how he was open minded and I believe this to be a trait many scientist have. He was open to finding new medical treatment the same way he was open to finding new truths of the natural world. All though he was open minded to new ideas he still questioned them . Questioning ideas rather then believing they are true with out evidence is another trait I believe make a scientist. Darwin was able to test out this new treatment to form his own option without blindly believing a physician.  A similarity to Franklin I found was they both questioned their faith. Like Franklin it was a slow change in beliefs. Neither one simply woke up one day with a realization that what they had believed in was wrong. Both started by asking questions and being curious. I find this dif