These are mostly minority opinions it like the reverse of the puritan days when the belief in science and the enlightenment is considered an strange and weird now those belief are considered weird. Most people today would be similar to the enlightenment type of thinking than the puritans. They try to use reason and critical thinking before making any major decision and not just follow what other people tell to do. Today we also use science to try explain the world instead of religion which let up process technology must faster than we have before . In the end the enlightenment thinking is what we know to be as a
With the recurrent expansion of scientific knowledge and technology in today’s society, new inventions, theories, and ideas are frequently brought into practice. All though new technologies and advancement in understanding of the world around us is crucial to scientific expansion, the outcomes of these ideas aren’t always positive. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and the original practices of Eugenics both serve as correlations to vast and ever-growing scientific universe. These two works can be related in their ability to serve as sources of caution during innovation of science. Nevertheless, both Frankenstein and Eugenics can also be dissimilar from that of one another.
The scientific method is used by researchers all around the world to discover new theories and ideas. Science in itself is a compilation of explanations about objective actuality that is derived from observed or hypothesized phenomena and then tested through experimentation. Human ability to make more accurate qualitative and quantitative observations has allowed for greater knowledge acquisition. However, the knowledge acquired through observation in the field of science is in a constant state of change, possibly due to the fact in the majority of testing in the world is viewed only through a scientific evolutionary lens (J. Morris, n. d.). Although there are always new discoveries, theories that were once thought to be unchanging are being challenged.
According to the scientific method in order to test a hypothesis one must make sure the claim is falsifiable. Although there is evidence that the planets move almost like clockwork, however that is not enough to prove astrology specifically. However studies and tests have been conducted in the past in order to verfiy its claims. Similar to the practise of witchcraft, the failure of producing the desired result is almost always blamed on the psychic or astrologers inability and not the fault of astrology itself.5 The difficulty to test this is due to its subjectivity. This makes it unscientific; the result of every experiment must either be true or
In “The Accidental Universe”, Alan Lightman illustrates how the role of science has been explaining and reasoning the unknown by methods of fundamental causes and principles. However, physicists are taking a new approach and Lightman argues this classic role may be diminishing. Recent developments in cosmological findings have led premier physicists to accept a new theory, known as the Multiverse Theory. The multiverse theory proposes that our universe is only one of a nearly infinite number, all with varying unpredictable and uncalculable properties. This theory has confronted many physicists with decisions that challenge conventional wisdom and this “fork in the road” has the potential to radically change the modern day fundamental physics.
Critics such as Dawkins and Russell say the universe is here today due to ‘brute fact’ whereas Swinburne would argue highly with that and say ‘God is simpler than anything we could imagine and gives an explanation for the system’. Incorporation Aristotle’s notion of a prime mover, Aquinas formulated his version of the cosmological or "first cause" argument. The first cause incorporates the theory that there must be a contingency/necessary being. According to this argument, the things which we see around us now are the products of a series of previous causes indicating a prime mover. But that series cannot go back in time forever.
Fluid intelligence doesn’t look much like the capacity to memorize and recite facts, the skills that people have traditionally associated with brainpower. But building it up may improve the capacity to think deeply that Carr and others fear we’re losing for good. And we shouldn’t let the stresses associated with a transition to a new era blind us to that era’s astonishing potential. We swim in an ocean of data, accessible from nearly anywhere, generated by billions of devices. We’re only beginning to explore what we can do with this knowledge-at-a-touch.
That before we know it our appliances will be smarter than us one day and that’s not how man intended life to be; humans are supposed to be on top. Not being able to use today’s technology rings in Barry’s purpose. Technology has gone wild and he makes it very clear with several examples. His ability to discredit these technologic advances brings credit to his point. One can always refute anything they’d like, but to be effective, one needs to have appropriate facts for back-up and a dominating style that brings it all together.
Shirky starts by revealing the case about how our new technology has enabled amateurs to make a large number of average grade information and products, lowering our levels of what is considered acceptable. Shirky then provides horrid predictions of the future caused by the collapse of culture. He adds that these fears are actually true and have been around for a long period of time, proving this claim through historical references of the Guttenberg’s press and the Protestant reformation. Shirky shifts to focus on the importance of the innovations that occur after: the new norms are increasingly made the “intellectual output” of society. In the article Shirky establishes the point that we are now going through a similar growth in our publishing capability as we had in our past.
We may not know the same subjects as previous generations, but we are adapting to the ever changing world around us. Calling us the “Dumbest Generation” is a bit harsh considering that our generation and previous generations were taught in different societies. Our generation is the generation of technology, while the generations before us weren’t exposed to the technologies of today. Of course, no generation is going to admit to being less educated than another generation. Each generation would consider themselves the smartest, but to others that might seem farfetched.