Please choose 2 out of the 3 topics for your assignment (each essay 900 words):

 

1. The scientist In Hollywood

The image of the scientist is poorly depicted in Hollywood. Would you agree with that?

Science fiction, Star Wars, Dr. Spock are really great movie or television topics. The image of the dedicated honest scientist rarely makes it to the Los Angeles studios.Can you provide an explanation and discuss whether this could be a reason why the image of the dedicated scientist does not appear among the career projects contemplated by this TV generation. There might be other reasons? Discuss.

 

2. Physics and Politics

Since the beginning of the 20th century scientists like Pasteur, Niels Bohr and Marie Curie have maintained strong positive images of dedication to science and humanity. Discuss what has changed in the background to create such a climate of critical evaluation of science and scientists later in the century. This has become even more crucial now in the competition for scarce resources and the deterioration of the global quality of life. Discuss.

 

3. Can Thinking About Evolution Be Improved?

Evolution appears as either a major topic or as a powerful example in practically every chapter of your book- yet even very recent US statistics claim that over 70% of the North American population dispute or ignore the ideas or the consequences of evolution theory.

Of course the emergence of new antibiotic resistant diseases could be used as a good example of evolutionary processes but can you think of more potent arguments you could advance in education to reduce the stubborn 70% statistics?

 

 

 

Sample Excerpts

The following excerpts are taken from different essays, and designed to provide you with a sample of an A level essay a B level essay and a C level essay.

 

A range essay excerpt

“A scientist in his laboratory is not only a technician…We should not allow it to be believed that all scientific progress can be reduced to mechanisms, machines, [and] gearing”. 1 When a young student decides if the field of science would be the correct topic to study in university, he or she is often influenced by myths and rumours rather than facts. A common myth that stereotypes many scientists is that they are computers who use pure logic to obtain their respective results; however, history has repeatedly shown that “science cannot be done my mere computers: developing scientific knowledge requires skills that computers cannot have”. 2 Logic alone cannot allow an individual obtain scientific knowledge as “logic is self-containedA, and doesn’t by itself hook onto the material world” 3, ­therefore a person with a logical mind may not be suited for the field of science. Individuals with the ability to reason gives them to opportunity to figure out what makes sense thus allowing them to expand their ideas onto the world around them and create innovations that change their respective environment. This trait is often more challenging than obtaining the logic behind the idea itself.4 Young students who are entering university who wish to enter the studies of science should have the ability to reason rather than an ability to carry out calculations in a logical sense as these traits are required to become a successful scientist. Marie Curie and Edward Jenner– two outstanding scientists whose work greatly impacted the world – effectively used their ability to reason to amazingly utilize their respective discoveries to better European society. A good scientist is not created on the basis of logic alone; one must be able to connect his or her theory onto aspects of this material world, which requires intuition. Through the lives of universally accepted outstanding scientists – Marie Curie and Edward Jenner– one can understand how both scientists used their ability to reason in order to connect their theories to the world around them.

 

The most impressive trait of an outstanding scientist is not his or her discovery, but it is figuring out how to make sense of it and how to connect it to the material world. Marie Curie’s ability to utilize her and her husband’s research in radioactivity and X-rays   to help her adoptive country France in the First World War brilliantly exemplifies why history defines Curie as an outstanding scientist. Curie came to the realization that X- rays could save soldiers’ lives by allowing doctors to see bullets, shrapnel, and broken bones in a wounded soldiers body.5 Curie convinced the French government to allow her to set up France’s first military radiology centers by creating the Petit Curies. The Petit Curies were a set of radiology vehicles that transported X rays apparatus to the wounded at the battlefront. Currie gave herself a quick lesson in anatomy and made her way to the battlefront to help operate some of the Petit Curies in order to treat wounded soldiers.6 Curie’s ability to reason allowed her to connect her research to her world around her in order to save the lives of many wounded men in the war and greatly aid the French military during their war efforts. A great scientist such as Curie must be able to do more than pure calculations driven by logic; these scientists must possess the ability to reason and connect their research to the material world to create a change in their respective society.

 

Eve Curie, Madame Curie: A Biography. Boston: Da Capo Press. 1937. Print

Boris Castel and Sergio Sismondo, The Art of Science. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated. 2008), 55

Boris Castel and Sergio Sismondo, The Art of Science. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated. 2008), 71

Boris Castel and Sergio Sismondo, The Art of Science. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated. 2008), 72

“Marie Curie and the Science of Radioactivity: War Duty (1914-1919)”. American Institute of Physics. 13 October 2014. http://www.aip.org/history/curie/war1.htm.

“Marie Curie and the Science of Radioactivity: War Duty (1914-1919)”. American Institute of Physics. 13 October 2014. http://www.aip.org/history/curie/war1.htm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B range essay excerpt

First of all, this discussion should begin with a look at what logic, intuition, and reasoning is and how each helps science. Logic is “the science of statements, describing which statements follow strictly from others” (Castel & Sismondo, 2008, p. 71). It can be compared to a computation in that it produces the same rational conclusions from a given set of information for anyone, anywhere, anytime; one downside to its reliability and consistency is that it has no room for innovation. On its own, it cannot move past drawing the conclusions and depends on the rest of reasoning to take it any further and make the conclusions useful.

 

In contrast to logic, intuition is creative, without limits, and all about making connections and taking the findings to a direction, while it may lack the scientific evidence to ground what comes out of it. It is a certain notion one gets on a matter or a group of facts that may form before there is enough science to support it; it often guides scientists on their work, providing purpose and directions, but is dependent on evidence or logic to be validated.

 

According to Castel and Sismondo (2008, p. 74), reasoning is a pattern of contemplating, which is specific to a domain of science; it evolves over time as gradually more people reach consensus in the process of attempting to use their own to explain the findings, but it never completely converges, for it has no end, like time. Reasoning as a collective skill is honed over time (Castel & Sismondo, 2008, p. 74) and involves a range of scientific skills, from defining a problem to supporting theories with relative evidence or successful applications. Each of those skills requires logic and/or intuition, thus reasoning as a whole requires both logic and intuition. Reasoning helps to strengthen, develop, enhance, and expand and/or extend its specific domain of science, as does the stitching in holding together, making more durable, embellishing, making bigger, and/or modifying the clothing.

 

C range essay excerpt

Using logic alone can tell us nothing new about the world, especially since there are things in this world that are not self evident.  When studying science, one cannot solely use the logical part of their brain, but one must incorporate reasoning into it as well. “ Science cannot be done by mere computers: developing scientific knowledge requires skills that computers cannot have.” (Castel & Sismondo, 2008:56)  If people just used logic, we would just be like a computer, and computers are not able to do science. If scientists were just like computers, there would be no room for judgment, questioning and discussion, and without them, their discoveries and findings can become very bias and flawed. Without reasoning in science, we would not be able to come up different streams of science or different scientific theories, instead we would all just agree and disagree on the same thing and everything would be black and white. It is difficult and nearly unfeasible to completely connect logic to the real and useful part of the world. However, with the use of patterns of reasoning, scientists are able to perceive and understand the world better and as well, are able to figure out what makes sense. In order to learn how to use patterns of reasoning, one must be able to understand what they have learned and apply it to different context. This can be applied to an everyday situation. Suppose that one just learned a new word. They have no idea what it means, how to apply and use it in context, but through the hearing of the word being used, understanding the meaning of the word and being corrected, one will be able to know the word’s range of applicability. Scientists do this as well.  They come up with a new theory and they learn to understand and how to apply it to our daily lives. By doing this, they are able to understand the theory’s range of applicability and how to reason with it.