Raj Warman Mrs. Vreeland AP Language and Composition 22 October 2014 Stopping Science Strictures Science is one of man’s most powerful tools in interpreting his status in the universe; however, with this great power comes great responsibility, and therefore, there must be reasonable expectations and restrictions, but does that mean that restrictions need to be placed to limit the pursuit of science? Or rather, does society need restrictions to limit how science is to be used? Literature and historical events both point to the single truth that society, not science, must be checked.
John Paul II and Ratzinger speak of the dangers of technology in their respective works, each expressing concerns that we not abandon our moral, ethical or spiritual compasses in the face of scientific or technological advances. John Paul II, in Fides et ratio, approaches this towards the end of his work, when he addresses a word to scientists. He speaks of the neverending amazement of the achievements of science, especially in the twentieth century, where scientific research offers greater knowledge of the universe as a whole, from molecular to the atomic structures that it is made up of. John Paul II urges scientists to continue their works, but cautions that it must be true to the philosophical and ethical values of humankind, which he states are the distinctive and indelible mark of the human person. In the finite reality of the world or of man, he states, the never-ending search for the truth or answers always brings about new questions, always pointing to something higher, the access to Mystery.
Marx and Weber both provide a critical analysis of capitalism, studying the origins of capitalism and the general characteristic of today’s capitalistic society. This essay will be discussing the similarities and differences between both sociologist’s in their writings of capitalism. To begin with, Marx’s work and contributions will be considered, particularly focusing on his main book, Capital, and how this book is a very clear demonstration of the emergence of capitalism in the nineteenth century. His concept of alienation will be looked at, as will his idea of commodity fetishism and how he placed paramount importance on the idea of exchange value in developing a capitalist society. This essay will then be moving on to a comparison
Science is one of the most essential tools awarded to the human race to ensure its evolution and longevity. Without science, it is plausible to imagine that the entire human race would have been wiped out of existence. The factual and unbiased nature of science in conjunction with the
The specialised critique of capitalism found in the Communist Manifesto (written by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels), provides a basis for the analysis and critique of the capitalist system. Marx and Engels wrote about economical in relation to the means or mode of production, ideology, alienation and most fundamentally, class relations (particularly between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat). Collectively, these two men created the theory of Marxism. There are multiple critiques of Marxism that attack the fundamental tenants of their argument. Several historical events have fueled such criticisms, such as the fall of the Soviet Union, where Marxism was significantly invalidated and condemned. On the flip side, Marxism has been widely supported in times of capitalist hardships. What viewpoint a person will hold towards Marxism is largely dependable on the economical environment in which they live. Further, it is also important to remember that Marx and Engels lived in a very different era than today’s society, and the concept of capitalism may have arguably changed quite a lot over time. Therefore, the principles found in the Manifesto may often have to be refurnished and reapplied to fit different economic environments.
Throughout time, science has had significant impacts on society. It has not only contributed to new ways of thought and understanding, but it has also advanced the human race. However, science has proved that it is a power that can lead to devastating consequences and because of this, western society’s attitude towards science changed from the 18th century to the end of the 20th century.
As, “methods of teaching improve,” it became, “possible to reach the frontier of knowledge,” much faster than ever before. As many expected, “scientific advance to continue…it increasingly attract[ed] the best brains.” With so many progressions in numerous fields, knowledge became accessible to the masses. Unfortunately, the, “explosive forces,” generated by this new information made it, “impossible to preserve the kind of society in which science can flourish.” Here, Russell describes the, “arrival of science in an environment that [was] not ripe for it.” Typically such innovation would be a period of growth in the positive direction, however it was much the opposite now that, “modern states,” had to, “compete for nuclear physicists.” Regrettably this new information was now being used for corrupt purposes. Additionally, it began raising questions that took us, “beyond the sphere of science,” and into the, “imaginative understanding of mass phycology,” along with their, “ethics and moral codes.” While advancements were being made, “science…cannot supply us with an ethic,” and we were left at a loss. In search of a, “somewhat different moral code from the one inherited by the past,” we were led back, once again, to science. It may not be able to give us virtue,
This concept of Marx’s intentions to question the theory on capitalism and what may change over time dealing with the future evolution and future communism was not unfamiliar and ordinary at this time. Marx used these theories on the development of communism and evolution in the future. He later goes into detail on the dependency relationship between origins within capitalism. Marx further initiates his ideology on the convergence from capitalism to communism and the occurrence of different phases throughout this including revolutionary and political alterations. He evaluates the essential values of the proletariat and how their role in the capitalist society was the fundamental groundwork of the examination on the regulations regarding the
Thomas Kuhn’s, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is masterful text giving insight on how scientific progress occurs in our communities. Kuhn believed that science progressed in a spontaneous and unpredictable manner, shaped by social and political factors of groups of scientific community and not by development-by-accumulation. Although during the time this book was published these claims seemed bold and extremely radical, in today’s society we can relate to Kuhn’s views of scientific conduct. This was one of the most interesting and challenging novels I have read so far in my academic career. I felt that it was extremely specific a very dense, but at the same time very relatable. Being a science major my entire life, I had an interest before even beginning the text, nonetheless while reading it. I thought the text was very enlightening and in a manner eye opening. After reading Kuhn’s book, my perspective of science has completely changed. Kuhn’s bold statements on the minor gaps that science leaves out even in its most perfect and established form, provide a sense of guidance for his reasoning behind the episodic natures of a scientific revolutions.
The American dream and the mode of production in “Bordertown” Prominent Karl Marx’s theory on the division of labor and the social class structure, as outlined by his concept of “the mode of production”, directly relates to social equality, ideology, and social economic power. “The mode of production” is understood to be the basis from which the majority of other social concepts, such as the relations between social classes, political and legal systems, work relations, morality and ideology, and many other phenomena, arise. These social concepts form the superstructure, for which the economic system forms the base. This theory is also related to ordinary people’s struggle for truth, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness also known
The observation of nature and the formulation of a hypothesis is the back bone of many scientific experiments today. This allows for many observers or scientists to product a conclusion based on statistical results of the phenomenal (SOURCE). The result of the scientific method has produced much technological advancement and
The product of these social relationships becomes an entity in itself (society sui generis). Karl Marx is concerned with the exact development of industrial capitalist society. For him, most social classes or structures in the past have either ended in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. Therefore, part of his ideology is to minimize the division of labour to an extend which would make it possible to reduce certain negative impacts that industrial capitalism has on the individual. He appreciated the work of many other philosophers but also argues that the purpose of his own work is in changing the whole way of how society is structured.
Marx’s idea of the genesis of capitalism is rooted in his theory of historical materialism. Historical materialism is the “materialistic interpretation of history” and is based on the concept of dialectical materialism. He regarded that evolution is the result of economic forces alone, which is why the fundamental activity of man is “social production”. Since, no man can produce in isolation, man needs to enter into definite political and social relationships in each mode of production.
Marxism is derived from the name Karl Marx. He was born in Germany in 1818 and the son of a liberal lawyer. Karl Marx worked with Friedrich Engels and was best known for Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto (Emerling 2005: 15-16). The basics of the Marxist
The topic that Weber treated at that time is as topical as ever, and has hardly lost any of its explosiveness, as the scientific enterprise is still in a state of upheaval – with numerous developments and tendencies. His questions today are so topical as at that time, that this work can also be researched without any problems approximately 100 years later. He follows the discussion about the future of science and the central question of how science is designed as a profession and how it is to be understood, as the academic environment has already begun to change. As an example, Weber cites the