Do you agree that we often are unable to reach conclusions when it comes to social issues?
Do you agree that science is less complicated that social problems, even though he states that having the knowledge could be either bad or good?
I feel as though the author Richard Feynman, is completely contradicting himself throughout this whole lecture. He starts off by telling the reader that social problems are less pertinent, due to the fact that science is the only stable problem.. to which we can actually draw conclusions. He states that social problems are virtually unsolvable. After this, he goes on to express that "The instructions (as to how to use science), also, would be of no value without the key. So it is evident that, in spite of the fact that science could produce enormous horror in the world, it is of value because it can produce something." This is insinuating that social issues have no capability of producing anything. A social problem is often referred to "Social issues are matters which directly or indirectly affect many or all members of a society and are considered to be problems, controversies related to moral values, or both." In regards to this definition, I completely disagree with Feynman when he insinuates that social issues have no potential to produce anything, because they can, in fact, produce solutions to extremely negative situations.
After making himself clear that social problems are CLEARLY insignificant in relation to science, he goes on to say "But I would like not to underestimate the value of the worldview which is the result of scientific effort. We have been led to imagine all sorts of things infinitely more marvellous than the imaginings of poets and dreamers of the past. It shows that the imagination of nature is far, far greater than the imagination of man. For instance, how much more remarkable it is for us to be stuck -- half of us upside down -- by a mysterious attraction, to a spinning ball that has been swinging in space for billions of years, than to be carried on the back of an elephant supported on a tortoise swimming in a bottomless sea." This proves that this whole lecture consists of him contradicting himself over and over again, confusing the reader as to what the point of the lecture really is. I disagree with the view that science is more significant than social problems. I think they go hand in hand.
"Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure -- that it is possible to live and not know. But I don't know whether everyone realizes that this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle. Permit us to question -- to doubt, that's all -- not to be sure. And I think it is important that we do not forget the importance of this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained. Here lies a responsibility to society."
~ Doesn't questioning and pondering refer to social problems as well?
- grapple: engage in a close fight
- impetuous: acting or done quickly without thought
- proponents: advocating a theory
No comments:
Post a Comment