Research Topic

I would like my research topic to be about whether the internet is a good or bad thing for our society. This is a topic that I feel people have many different opinions on. Due to the many negative and positive factors that may come out the internet, this argument can go either way. At this moment, I can list off the top of my head a bunch of both negative and positive factors so I can not decide myself. I feel that this is a great opportunity to finally research and come up with an answer that I feel is right. I have always thought about this question but never took the time out to research and decide.

 

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/internet-good-bad-society

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/effects-of-internet-on-society

http://www.wired.com/insights/2013/02/is-the-internet-good-or-bad-for-your-brain/

http://schatzie-speaks.hubpages.com/hub/Predicting-the-Internets-Affect-on-Civic-Society

Breast Cancer

Barbara Ehrenreich is a journalist and author graduated from Rockefeller University with a PhD in cell biology. “Welcome to Cancerland” is a first person essay written by Ehrenreich that shows readers her thoughts on breast cancer. She starts off the essay with explaining in detail all the feelings she had when she was getting a mammogram up until she was told she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Throughout the essay, Ehrenreich tone seemed very critical, obvious that she did not take this news well at all. But, who could blame her? Cancer is such a big reason why there are so many deaths that occur all over the world and it is so hard to treat. A few weeks ago I received a call from my father telling me that my mom is now diagnosed with lung cancer. Fear was the only feeling I had for the longest time after hearing the news One must have a very happy life and full of many positive thoughts to be okay with the news of being diagnosed with cancer. Who would not be scared? “IT IS NOT O.K.!” was part of a response that she felt she could relate to most to a post she made on an online message board in a group with others with breast cancer as well. Others felt that she needed counseling because of her negativity towards the situation and wanted her to life a happier life and make the best of the situation. Ehrenreich believes that there is nothing positive about her problem and she has only grew “only more deeply angry” throughout the experience. She also mentions that she does not fully trust all the organizations or groups  like American Cancer Society and Relay for Life, questioning the percentage of money they raise actually goes to help cancer patients. She feels that most of the money would go on creating all these products that are being used to promote these organizations or societies.  Lastly, what caught my attention was her view on the term “survivors” that people would use to describe people who fought breast cancer and lived. She felt that this term vilifies the people that didn’t survive or the people dying from breast cancer.

Deborah Rhodes is a doctor who took part in creating a different type of tumor detector for breast cancer alongside with a team of physicists. She spoke with a physicist to inform him that the main issue in not having a more clear detector for a tumor in the breast was because of the density of the breast tissue in the breasts. The denser the breast tissue, the harder to scan. Rhodes is now currently in the process of trying to get this new gamma camera tool to be available all over the place. She has been turned down four times until it got approved. Rhodes’ goal is not to gain money, because like she said, she gets no money out of this tool becoming famous. All she is aiming for is to help people detect breast cancer a lot earlier and cheaper when compared to the traditional mammograms. However, when used together, studies have shown that it is a more effective this way. When used together, it is a lot easier to detect tiny tumors in the breast .  I thought it was amazing how this woman in the video was one to potentially help save so many lives by taking part in creating this tool.

The Mind of an Adolescent

What is it that makes adults more mature than us teenagers? David Dobbs, an author and journalist who has appeared in the New York Times Magazine, National Geographic, and the Atlantic, talks about the different thought processes that go on in a teenager’s brain versus an adult’s in his article Beautiful Brains in National Geographic. This article is meant to also explain to us why we think the way we do compared to adults and to give adults a better understanding so that they are less judgmental towards us. Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, a cognitive neuroscientist, also talks about similar issues in her video about the adolescent brain. Both the article and video mentions that due to such advances in technology, researchers developed “brain-imaging technology” that allowed them to observe the development and pattern activity of one’s brain. Through these scans, they were able to come up with the conclusion that our brains are not yet fully developed yet at this age. “They act that way because their brains aren’t done! You can see it right there in the scans!” Teenagers seem to be viewed as “reckless”, mentioned when Dobbs starts off his article with a story about his son being arrested due to speeding at 113 mph. We do this for the “excitement, novelty, risk, and the company of peers,” as Dobbs mentions. Being a teenager myself, I was able to relate to a lot of what Dobbs talks about in this article. I find myself taking risks all the time and loving the thrill of it. I was especially able to relate to his idea of how “teens prefer the company of those their own age more  than before or after.” He mentions that teens do this to “invest in the future rather than the past.” I find it true when Dobbs mentions how at this point of our lives, we seem to care more about whether we have peers or not. For example, “the hysteria of a thirteen-year-old deceived by a friend or the gloom of a fifteen-year-old not invited to a party.” He points out that we “react to social ups and downs as if their fates depended upon them!” I along with many other people my age can probably agree with this statement.  A main point that Dobbs tries to get across throughout this article, like mentioned before, is that adults should not be annoyed with these “reckless” behaviors of teenagers. He tries to have adults see past these “distracting” traits and try

Carl Sagan’s “Why We Need To Understand Science”

Carl Sagan’s “Why We Need To Understand Science” talks about how our country needs to reach for a more scientific education. Sagan’s essay provides us with statistics showing how our country, America, falls behind when it comes to mathematical and scientific education, compared to British Columbia, Japan, Britain, and Korea. He believes that “We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” I agree with Sagan because a huge part of our life, almost everything we do or feel, involves science.

At one point in the essay, Sagan reinforces his point by explaining to us how important science is to our everyday lives. His main goal is to “deepen public understanding of science.” He mentions how important it is to understand everything that is happening around us. For example, knowing about global warming, acid rain, ozone depletion, is all part of understanding science. He mentions that jobs and wages all depend on science and technology. Without science, we would we be missing a huge part of our everyday lives. Sagan at one point, however, talks about why some may believe that people are against or worried about science and technology. He explains that science can also be harmful to some extent, not only “pouring out good deeds to the world.” He uses nuclear weapons as an example. Sagan tells us that we can not just conclude that science puts too much power in someone. We can not simply just try to get rid of science. One point that he makes that really caught my attention when reading this essay was when he said, “Advances in medicine and agriculture have saved more lives than have been lost in all the wars in history.” Yes, in some ways, science can be harmful, but it has always done us a lot of good. There are both positive and negative aspects of science but that can also be said about almost everything.

Sagan explains to us why he feels is the reason that our country is so behind compared to others in education and what we can do to fix it. He feels that things are a lot different now than they were during the Great Depression. Teaching was an admired profession and they enjoyed teaching. He believes that this is not the case anymore. “…learning was widely recognized as the road out of poverty. Little of that is true today.” Sagan did not fully blame the teachers and parents but also the children as well. He made a great point when he described how different high school students are compared to how we were when we were in the kindergarten or first grade. He says that at that young age, children are curious and ask a lot of questions because they are young and want to learn. In high school however, it is totally different. At that age, people are worried about what their peers may think of them so that can cause them to be hesitant in asking questions to learn, fearing that it would be a dumb question. When I read this part of the essay, I was pretty shocked with how accurate this was. I never realized it until now. Sadly, our self consciousness does play a huge part on our thrive to learn.

Focused Freewriting: Orwell

1.           Orwell starts off this article with defining the meaning of “science”. Throughout the article, he then proceeds to persuade us through arguing and trying to prove his point. The point he has been trying to make is that the word science should be viewed differently than how many believe it as. It should be more of a broad definition rather than just the exact sciences.

2.           “Science means something that happens in a laboratory: the very word calls up a picture of graphs, test-tubes, balances, Bunsen burners, microscopes. A biologist, and astronomer, perhaps a psychologist or a mathematician is described as a ‘man of science’: no one would think of applying this term to a statesman, a poet, a journalist or even a philosopher. And those who tell us that the young must be scientifically educated mean, almost invariably, that they should be taught more about radioactivity, or the stars, or the physiology or their own bodies, rather than that they should be taught to think more exactly.” This was the main point that Orwell was trying to argue against so I feel that this was a passage that was very important to him. He points out what everyone or at least most people believe but he argues against it throughout the article.

“Science is generally taken as meaning either (a) the exact sciences, such as chemistry, physics, etc., or (b) a method of thought which obtains verifiable results by reasoning logically from observed fact. If you ask any scientist, or indeed almost any educated person, ‘What is science?’ you are likely to get an answer approximating to (b). In everyday life, however, both in speaking and in writing, when people say ‘science’ they mean (a).” This passage stood out to me as I first read this article. Before reading this passage, I never really thought about the other ways of defining the word science. Orwell mentions how others would usually view what science is and then opens our eyes for us to realize what other ways that the word science can be interpreted.

3.            In my opinion, I felt that at some points, Orwell did portray being cautious, but at other times he wasn’t. Orwell states, “But does all this mean that the general public should not be more scientifically educated? On the contrary! All it means is that scientific education for the masses will do little good, and probably a lot of harm, if it simply boils down to more physics, more chemistry, more biology, etc., to the detriment of literature and history.” I believed this showed a bit of caution because he doesn’t fully try to disregard the act of being scientifically educated. He just tries to prove a point that one is better than the other. However, there are times where I felt that he was not cautious at all. For instance, the times where he uses sarcasm to prove his point. “I think sheer professional jealousy is part of the reason for this. For if science is simply a method or an attitude, so that anyone whose thought-processes are sufficiently rational can in some sense be described as a scientist — what then becomes of the enormous prestige now enjoyed by the chemist, the physicist, etc. and his claim to be somehow wiser than the rest of us?”

4.            In the sixth paragraph, Orwell talks about the extent of subjectivity in science. He asks the question to merely to prove it wrong throughout he rest of the paragraph. He believes that the education of “exact sciences” does not teach you morals or ethics. He uses the example of scientists creating German war machines to prove his point.

In the eighth paragraph, Orwell poses a question to readers to clear things up but at the same time, still standing behind what he believes. He’s clearing up that he is not trying to fully deny the thought of being scientifically educated but still persuading at some extent, that being educated with just the sciences will do no good.

5.           a) In the seventh paragraph, Orwell compares the German scientists to the writers and journalists. He believes that the number of German scientists who “voluntarily exiled themselves” are much smaller than those of writers and journalists. This comparison is to justify the point that he is trying to get across. That the way scientists think is a lot different than the way writers and journalists do.

b) In the sixth paragraph, Orwell compares science with politics. He complained that the “The German scientific community, as a whole, made no resistance to Hitler.” He believes that scientists could not really tell from right and wrong, or if they did, did not really do much about it. In the end, they still helped and aided Hitler in creating these weapons for war.

6.            Right at the beginning of this essay, Orwell says, “At the same time, scientists should be brought out of their isolation and encouraged to take a greater part in politics and administration.” He doesn’t necessarily say that being educated with the exact sciences is a bad thing. He just wanted to get through people’s head that science is not always just about those specific subjects of science. He doesn’t agree with those who believe that being educated with just the exact sciences make you more intelligent than others. He wants people to be more knowledgeable about the world around us rather than just learning how the body works.

7.            Orwell ended his essay talking about reading an American magazine, learning that “a number of British and American physicists refused from the start to do research on the atomic bomb, well knowing what use would be made of it.” Orwell believed that they had “acquaintance with history or literature or the arts” rather than just knowledge of science. Orwell ends this essay, backing up his point of why people should gain knowledge of other things as well. What he learns in this American magazine, shows readers that there is a benefit of having the education of history, literature, humanities, and art.

8.           Orwell uses different people or things to support his argument about science. The Nazis were a group that portrayed racial science. Racial science is believing that a certain belief is superior than another. The Nazis believed that their Aryan race was superior to any other, which led them to exterminate anyone who they believed were inferior. Orwell believes that they were not well educated with the world around them, which is why it led the Nazis to believe in what they did. Orwell mentions the atomic bomb a lot in his essay. Orwell uses the atomic bomb, something well known for killing many people during World War II, probably to show how strongly he feels about his point. He uses something so dangerous to show how much harm he believes educating yourself with just the sciences itself will do.

9.          Even though this essay was published in 1945, there is still truth behind what Orwell is saying. If you think about it, society now still views these scientists or doctors as having the upper hand. They probably make more money and require more years of school than other fields of study. I personally agree with Orwell and believe that this shouldn’t mean that these sciences are more important than other subjects. It is however, to some extent, still how people view this situation.

Science? Helpful or Harmful?

In George Orwell’s article, “What is Science?”, he states at one point, ““…scientific education for the masses will do little good, and probably a lot of harm, if it simply boils down to more physics, more chemistry, more biology, etc., to the detriment of literature and history”. I could agree with this statement at a certain extent but not fully. I believe that Orwell took his example of this to a bit of an extreme level. He mentioned earlier in this article that with all this knowledge of science, people could use it to make atomic bombs or other weapons like scientists did in World War 2. First of all, we don’t really know whether these scientists created these bombs willingly. For all we know, they may have been threatened to do it. We can’t really say that people would be using all this knowledge for evil causes. It is up to each person what they choose to do with the knowledge they gain. This goes for any type of education that people get. We don’t know how many people would use their scientific knowledge to create bombs, just like how we don’t know how many people would use it to try to cure cancer. Nowadays, students are required to take classes and learn about other subjects even though it is not part of their major. Students won’t only be learning about sciences because they would be required to learn about other things as well.

What Is Science?

How would you explain what science is? George Orwell’s piece, What Is Science, starts off with asking whether the meaning of the word science is the “exact sciences” such as biology, chemistry, physics, and etc. or a “method of thought” verifiable reasoning and logical observations. In the past, I have been taught the definition of what science is. I never really put much thought into the meaning(s) of science. When I hear the word science now, I just think about the extremely difficult biology and chemistry courses I just took recently. I never really thought of anything else to be categorized as science except for the “exact sciences”. Judging by Orwell’s sarcasm, he does not seem too fond of scientists who believe that they are more intelligent. In fact, he believes that these facts about our body, referring to the exact sciences, are not as important as literature or history would be. He compares the situation to World War 2, saying that these scientists contribute in creating these atomic bombs or deadly weapons, even when known what they are used for. He believes that the mindset of others such as poets, philosophers, and journalists, would cause them to act differently. I believe most of Orwell’s arguments are all based on one’s own belief and anyone can choose either side. Orwell persuades and opens up reader’s eyes to the different views on the word science and how it should be “a way of looking at the world” rather than memorizing facts.

Anne Trubek’s View on Twitter

Anne Trubek believes that Twitter should not be used for people who feel that they should tweet, but for those who actually want to tweet. She compares these people who feel that they should tweet, as “bad guests” and that “twitter does not need more like them.” She compares these people to guests who comes to parties and zone out other talks but engages in conversation only when the conversation turns back to himself. Nowadays people feel the obligation to use this type of social networking because everyone else is doing it and also “further their careers”. Twitter should be something one wants to do because of all the benefits that Twitter offers. Trubek claims that tweeting will improve one’s writing although they don’t really know it. Every time a person tweets, they are forced to choose their words more carefully. They are to use more clear and concise writing due to the limited amount of letters you can use in your tweet. Anne Trubek, a professor at Oberlin College and also a writer and blogger, really opened my mind to Twitter. I never thought of using twitter until this writing class but now after reading her view on Twitter, I can honestly say that I am more open to the idea of using this type of social networking.