The Gay Science : A Modern Critique Of Science

In this paper, I will discuss how three influential scholars in this order: Augustine, Aquinas, Galileo, delimit science or the bible and the ways their beliefs overlapped or didn’t.

Frankenstein, in his Faustian quest for knowledge, comes to symbolise ‘the man of science’ within the text. His family background and social position places him as a man of the enlightenment. It is therefore arguable that Frankenstein represents the empirical strand of

Thesis: In a world where knowledge is essential, it is often asked just how much intelligence is “safe”. In the story Frankenstein, Shelley expresses the idea that knowledge is power and this is shown through both despair and progress. This can easily be understood through the conclusion that science is almost always left up to chance even though it is thought to be a straight cut subject.

Under the research of J. Michael Bishop, Science is being defended and explored for positive and negative out comes in the past years, to form an argument against the critics who believe science is no longer the answer. Throughout the article I discovered quality examples that support claims of ethos, pathos, and logos. Logos being the most reoccurring from of argument that Bishop chose, in my opinion reveals a stronger argument rather than one that has an argument revolved around pathos.

“The author of Frankenstein made it clear that it was not natural science and technology as such that led Victor and the poor monster to their doom, but only their uncritical and fanatical pursuit,” (Jagger 274) so much so that even Frankenstein when he later reflects on the time spent creating the creature comes to this conclusion saying he himself “appeared rather one doomed by slavery to toil in the mines, or any other unwholesome trade than an artist occupied by his favorite employment.” (Shelley 35) Frankenstein comes to regret his unnatural quest for the secret to creation saying “If the study to which you apply yourself has a tendency to weaken your affections, and to destroy your taste for those simple pleasures in which no alloy can possibly mix, then that study is certainly unlawful, that is to say, not befitting the human mind” so much so that if we observed control over our pursuits “Greece [would] not [have] been enslaved; Caesar would have spared his country; [..] and the empires of Mexico and Peru [would] not [have] been destroyed.” (Shelley 34). The single-minded strive for knowledge, science, is so destructive and unnaturally that it “dabble[s] in dirt” and “penetrates into the recesses of nature, and [show] how she works in her hiding places.” (Shelley

When dwelling into the explorations about science and religion, one can find it quite amusing. "If science and religion are to continue to coexist it seems opposed to the conditions of modern thought to admit that this result can be brought about by the so-called

The article don’t be so Gay: Challenging homophobic language by Erika L. Kirby is Professor of Communication Studies; she has been at Creighton since 1998. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in organizational communication, and she studies the everyday intersections of working and personal life, emphasizing how differing social identities (especially gender) assimilate into and collide with organizational structures. The following piece was originally published in 2008. The author’s main purpose is to educate the reader on the power of certain words. The author’s tone is truly concerned with how common homophobic slurs are use. The overall topic is to demonstrate what little thought we put in to our words.

In the article, “Geneticist Says Lesbianism Is Cultural, ‘Not Inherited’: Hamer Claimed Genetic Link for Male Homosexuality,” the author, Joyce Howard Price, examines a controversial research study that was performed by a geneticist with the National Cancer Research Institute, Dean Hamer. Price revealed Hamer’s conclusions of his study which illustrated different reasonings for sexual orientation in men and women. Hamer concluded that “male sexual orientation had many of the characteristics of a genetically influenced trait” (2) but that female homosexuality was rather “a willingness to listen to one’s own heart” (4) and “an openness to new feelings and new experiences.” (4). The author has also included research from other geneticists in

In her novel, Frankenstein, Mary Shelley warns of the boundaries of scientific exploration. Victor Frankenstein, a brilliant scientist, attempts to play God in resurrecting a corpse and creating new life. This has disastrous effects which include the death of many characters throughout the novel. All told, the story provides a cautionary tale of the attempts to “play God” in regards to scientific advancement. This raises the question of how far is too far in terms of scientific exploration.

Whereas ideas and beliefs are generally stunted in their growth and often tend to be passed down from one generation to the next. Intellectuals should never become shackled by their beliefs to the point it stands in the way of their quest for academic wisdom. Being well educated, one should always explore learning beyond the boundaries of their individual views. One of the more dogmatic topics of debate has always been religion versus science. Galileo, “the father of modern science”, was ultimately condemned for heresy by the Roman Inquisition for his lust for knowledge. Fortunately, times have changed and science and religion have learned to co-exist. Nonetheless, there is still a sense of social stigma associated with some of the topics that teeter on religion, such as Darwin’s Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory. Some of the greatest contributions to our world throughout the ages have been fueled by free thinkers that dared to venture outside the scope of their

      Butler's assertion may hold true as we examine the classic novel for indications of Shelley's influences. Frankenstein, while describing his revelations prior to the creation of the monster, poses the essential theological question: "Whence, I often asked myself, did the principle of life proceed?" (51). He then attempts to answer with scientific means by "getting acquainted with the science of anatomy" and by studying "the natural decay and corruption of the human body." Like Abernethy, Frankenstein seeks to meld the values of science and religion; like Lawrence, he esteems biological function above other convictions. In recounting his story, the doctor correlates scientific discipline with destiny: "Natural philosophy is the genius that has regulated my fate," he laments (38).

Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould provide critiques of work from authors whose opinions drastically vary from their own. Each essay’s goal is to prove their opposition’s views wrong and persuade readers towards a different way of thinking. Gould thoughtfully assess Philip Henry Gosse’s Omphalos and provides a commentary on the naturalist’s theory, breaking it down and offering alternative evidence as to why Gosse is wrong. Asimov takes a different approach to the dismissal of his rivals beliefs; harshly crediting the poet Walt Whitman as simple-minded for rejecting the teachings of astronomy and favouring the naked stars. Stephen Jay Gould offers a careful and respectful analysis of a conflicting perspective, whereas Isaac Asimov writes an

This first point begins with a discussion on modern day views on science in a modern society versus the spiritual based beliefs of old. In ancient days there was a natural understanding of a higher moral order. This understanding has been forsaken in modern American culture. 80% of Current Western culture argues that it is each persons right to define their own set of moral law and

At the time Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein, radical changes were occurring throughout Europe. During this time, there were great advances in science and technology and the Romantic Movement came about due to this new found industrialism. It is Shelley’s feelings about these radical scientific and technological advancements which she had portrayed through Frankenstein that leaves the readers with an overwhelming impression of the dangers of scientific hubris when they have come away from the book. The Romantic Movement itself was a reaction to Europe’s new found industrialism and had quickly developed into the basis for a new society.

In this essay I will argue that science and pseudoscience cannot be clearly demarcated: rather that there’s great difficulty and complication on the fringes when asserting strict criteria that distinguishes the two. I will give a brief overview and draw on the arguments made by philosophers of science throughout history and explain why perhaps their criteria are problematic. I will look in depth into ‘creation science’ and why we strongly consider this as pseudoscientific and analyse the more ambiguous peripheries of science such as Freudian psychoanalysis or even economics.