Briefly outline the features of 'big science'. What is the significance of the Manhattan Project in understanding the development of 'big science'?

A contemporary society must include people being more interconnected, technological innovation and globalization. However, the average man is too afraid to make drastic changes and as a result, we must slowly change so that the majority of the population still feels safe in the known. Science is a field of career that will make the average man not feel safe at all.

Scientific innovation, a newly introduced idea that everything has to be proven by science in order to be accurate , begun heading into the 20th century. Science led to confusion, uncertainty and unrest

Science has had a huge impact on society in the past few centuries with medicines curing disastrous diseases and the growing

In the Military-Industrial Complex Speech, President Dwight D. Eisenhower admits that “in this [technological] revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.” (Eisenhower 1) He notes that the “solitary inventor” is “being overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields” and warns that “a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.” This is significant because during a period in which government authority and decision making is being questioned to the core, the government’s increased involvement with the direction of scientific and technological research, and by extent education in itself, is deeply concerning the to the 1960s activists. They had reason to believe that the government did not know best, and suspected that the government’s increased role in universities and research could be mishandled. This message is echoed by President Eisenhower, as he warns of the “recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties.” (Eisenhower 2) He warns of an overreliance on technology and science, cautioning that people should not

Science was born deeply intertwined within the Western cultural realm. It developed snuggly with ideas of European grandeur through the “grace and favor of Almighty God” (Lindqvist, pg.11). “The cultural conditioning these [scientists] had absorbed early in their careers influenced more than their writing: it skewed their research (Freedman). Coinciding with scientific inquiries of

The things we are working on are so terrible that no amount of protestations or fiddling with politics will save our souls’. Teller continued, ‘The accident that we worked out this dreadful thing should not give us the responsibility of having a voice in how it is to be used’. With more confidence than Teller, Richard Feynman explained that a colleague ‘gave me an interesting idea: that you don't have to be responsible for the world that you're in. So I have developed a very powerful sense of social irresponsibility as a result’. Nevertheless, Teller and Feynman’s attitude towards politics is not wholly indicative of the zeitgeist among the other scientists of the Manhattan Project, for many embarked upon a wartime crusade. The widening gap between advances in science and technology and static political institutions posed a problem for which two solutions suggested themselves: ‘the first, to take a step backward and abandon nuclear developments, thus courting national suicide; the second, to combine intensive development of nuclear energy and all its potential benefits, with an effort to solve political problems on a world-wide scale’. They resolved to approach the second option.

The arguments and findings of the reports can be cross-linked to a number of important concepts in the theory behind science and technology policy. The main concepts that will be used to analyze the finding of the report are the linearity model versus the innovation space and the push-pull concept between R&D and businesses. The linear model of innovation describes as a chain of supply and demand starting with science and ending with economic growth. The science acts a suppler for the demand of technology, and technology supplies the demand of businesses in order to be innovative. The end result of an innovative business is perceived as a contributor to the increase in productivity and as a result economic growth. On the other hand, the concept of innovation space or the innovation ecosystem as referred to in the report regards innovation as the output of an integrated

science is done, 4) importance of data and evidence we can measure, 5) the culture of science.

“Questions of science, science and progress, do not speak as loud as my heart”, says the

Agreeing with Nicholas Rescher, who has a point of view on the values are inherent meaning with present day science cannot speak for future science because it is impossible to make any secure inferences from the substance of science at one time from a significantly different time. It's a scientific revolution that can never be precluded with unblinking confidence what sorts of resources and conceptions science of the future will use or not.

The universe is a complex place to live in. There are simple objects such as rocks that consist of only one material, but there are also complicated living organisms like humans living amongst the simplicity. But, how did this all come to be 13.8 billion years ago? Historians and scientists have given different perspectives as to how the universe came to existence. However, as time went on, a new idea has been proposed called big history. Big history “attempts to reconstruct the history of the whole time, back to the very beginning of the universe” (Christian, Brown, Benjamin). Big history is all encompassing and involves perspectives from science and history. The big history narrative is divided into sections called thresholds. There are

As a contemporary writer observing the timeline of modern science, and all the abridgments made to it over the past few centuries, one cannot help but ponder upon the course that science took to reach what it is today. We are aware of the pioneers of science such as Newton, Lavoisier, Stahl, Joule, Maxwell, Einstein etc, and all of the groundbreaking contributions these extraordinary individuals made to mould science into what we today know it to be. Over the course of History of Science, we have examined the various factors influencing the life and work of various men of science, and how the society, polity and religion of their time affected their contributions to science. We began with the classical elegance of Newtonian Enlightenment, drifted onto the chaotic happenings of the Industrial Revolution, glanced past the Romantic Movement and finally came upon the Einsteinian revelation. Through the course of the 300 or so years the aforementioned periods encompassed, we have seen scientific theories envisioned, published, critiqued, lauded and destroyed. Time is our witness as we analyze the many edits made to the holy text of science, and keeping in mind the irony of the previous sentence , I attempt to answer the question, “Is Modern Science a result of a few abrupt revolutions, or is it a carefully cumulative accumulation of knowledge”?

As people, we come with earlier knowledge and understandings on subjects and topics of study, “Science” being one of them. We make presumptions, based on either reasonable evidence or that our thoughts and ideas are known as true by others. Through this we have come to understand and define science as its aims, leaving its definition, whether consciously or unconsciously, unchallenged. We have taken advantage of the label that we have set for science, as well as its goals, and failed to look at them further.

This book, ‘What is this Thing called Science?’ is assigned to write a review on the third edition which was published in the year 1999, 1st February by University of Queensland Press. This book is reflects up to date with day today’s contemporary trend and gives a basic introduction on the philosophy of science. This is a very comprehensive book explaining the nature of science and its historical development. It is very informative and a necessary reference when attempting to understand the how science has evolved throughout time. The book is also well organized, and each chapter is concluded with suggestions for further reading. This book is actually a review on the philosophy of science.

Science is an important part of our every day lives. We wake up each morning because we hear the ringing of our alarm clocks and turn on our faucets to wash our faces with warm water. We turn on the lights in our rooms to see our clothes and get dressed and we put our breakfast in the toaster and sip coffee from our mugs. All these things we do in the short time we are rushing to get ready for work or school, are due to the advancement of science and technology.