Scientific Revolutions

Kuhn’s work, entitled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, examines the formation and evolution of paradigms as distinct scientific concepts.  It is the shift in paradigms, or rather when an old paradigm is replaced by a new paradigm that would be inconsistent with the old one, that ultimately allows for a Scientific Revolution. 

What I found especially interesting was Kuhn’s chapter on the relation of invisibility of such revolutions to the scientific textbook.  Accordingly, the textbook is filled with truncated versions of science that are “pedagogic vehicles for the perpetuation of normal science.”  These books are written and rewritten as scientific ideas evolve, and Kuhn asserts that these revolutions are known primary to those who experience them.  This idea extends beyond the history of science.  For example, students of history (I am thinking primarily high school and college) typically study events, facts, dates, etc., as opposed to the study of how these “facts” arose and evolved over time.  In any given field, students often study the essentials and basics without a deep understanding of the field’s formation and occurrence of fundamental paradigm shifts.

I can’t help but wonder where Darwin falls in terms of anomalies versus normal science.  Evolution and natural selection were not new ideas when Origins of Species was published, so were his thoughts the beginning of a revolution?  Certainly Darwin has proven to be a tremendously influential evolutionist, and the terms Darwin and evolution are virtually synonymous in popular culture.  It is also interesting to note that Darwin did not believe that evolution was directional or progressive, yet progress is essential to the idea of a scientific revolution (according to Kuhn, progress is an attribute of science and technology).

Technology and Neuromancer

William Gibson’s Neuromancer, published in 1984, was considered deeply imaginative and maybe even shocking at the time. Ideas of cyberspace, virtual reality, and biotechnology are engrained into the present day mindset, and on reading this book, I did not find anything especially new. While Gibson’s foresight into the area of technology is impressive, his exploration of biotechnology is even more so – devices such as prosthetics, facial grafts, surgically inset glasses, razor nails, etc. are just a sample of what is contained in this work. As the protagonist, Case, points out in the opening page, it was an “age of affordable beauty.” The question remains as to the distinction between biotechnology and technology. When I think of technology, devices such as computers, cars, or cell phones come to mind-essentially, inanimate objects. Biotechnology, on the other hand, merges technology with something that is organic, or living. Gibson illustrates this merging of the two sciences beyond the basic biomedical devices or enhancements of the characters (e.g. Molly’s lenses). This is best demonstrated when Case enters a virtual reality with the use of dermatrodes. These are (as the name denotes) electrodes attached to his epidermis. The dermatrode is itself organic in characteristic because it functions through a living organism. But beyond allowing for a physical improvement of Case, it allows him to enter a virtual reality cyberspace system (or matrix). Thus, the ideas biotechnology and technology seem fused together. On a side note, I found it interesting that the year this book was published is the title of George Orwell’s famous futuristic piece, 1984.

“Will you be my little geranium, until we are both blown up by uranium?”

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused a variety of reactions across the United States as well as the rest of the world.  Paul Boyer surveys this range of thoughts regarding the atomic bomb utilizing a wide array of sources in By the Bombs Early Light.  The moral issues that arose due to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy can be compared to themes of Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein.  Just how was this bomb “Frankensteinian?” 

My first thoughts were that the idea of creating a monster (or creating a Frankenstein) implies that one has stepped outside the scientific realm of what is acceptable or reasonable.  In other words, one has created something that is ultimately not ethical or moral and will only have negative impacts on society or individuals.  When the media or activists labeled the bomb as “Frankensteinian,” they were essentially accusing the creators or the bomb itself as “playing God.”  At least, I closely associate these two phrases together.  I found it especially interesting that there was not greater religious condemnation toward the bomb and nuclear energy, following the destruction of Hiroshima.  As Boyer points out: “both the Protestants and Catholic branches of American Christendom has formally addressed the moral issues posed for them on August 6, 1945. Both had roundly condemned the concept of total war, the deliberate terror bombing of civilians, and the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagaski.  But each had drawn back from a categorical condemnation of the atomic bomb as an instrument of war under certain conditions (229).”  In fact, some religious groups/people viewed the bomb as a gift from God in the development of science.

The issues that arose from this bombing forced religious groups to ask questions about their morals and faith.  Was this acceptable if it was used for an ultimate good and how do the bible and doctrine define what is ultimately good and right?  Also, was the bomb a gift from God or a violation of God’s created (and natural) world?

Modern Times

Within minutes of reading Frederick W. Taylor’s The Principles of Scientific Management, I immediately associated it with the Charlie Chaplin film.  Phrases such as “increasing our national efficiency” and “maximum prosperity” are the goals of modern industry and technology-increasing profit by maximizing every aspect of work.  Charlie Chaplin paints a picture of how this might play out in a typical factory as he is performing repetitive work and experimentally “force-fed.”  I did not think that Chaplin was trying to indicate that industry or manufacturing was necessarily bad, but that he wanted to address the underlying issues surrounding the explosion of technology in the twentieth century.  In light of the great depression, there was massive unemployment and poverty, both of which are experienced by the Tramp and the girl.  The department store scene reminded me of the “American Dream,” where people can live in comfort and complete obliviousness to the suffering of those outside of this ideal world.  It is interesting to note that perhaps Chaplin does not believe that these social dilemmas can be separated from the technological advances in society.  The tramp and girl leave the industrial city and walk towards the mountains on a road lined with telephone poles (I think) because it is the only way that they can escape their present circumstances.

The question still remains: what are the effects of technology on society?  Chaplin and Taylor had two competing views.   While Chaplin believed that there were deeper problems layered in technology and industry, Taylor argues that a productive and well compensated and developed worker will produce more and ultimately, this will benefit society.  I then think of the Tramp working “efficiently” in the assembly line, indicating that it might not be so easy to mold people into this ideal worker.

Summer for the Gods

Edward J. Larson captures the momentum of the Scopes Trial in his work entitled Summer for the Gods. He describes, in detail, the circumstances and events surrounding this “test” trial and the relationships between society, science, and religion.  Perhaps it is not the trial itself that was important, especially in comparison with the ongoing marked changes in religious and intellectual thought during the 1920s.  Overall, I enjoyed Larson’s method of describing the event in context of religious fundamentalism and civil liberty movements (such as the formation of the ACLU).  At times it felt more like I was reading an actual story as opposed to an historical/academic work, a rare accomplishment (in my opinion) of many history authors.

It is not difficult to see why the Scopes trial has such a legendary place in history today.   The origins involved famous and influential characters such as Bryon and Darrow, each representing controversial and divisive topics of science, education, and religion.  When the momentum of these events died down in the late twenties, the ACLU and fundamentalism still remained in various forms and both have persisted to the present day.  Authors such as Frederick Lewis Allen and Richard Hofstader brought the Scopes trial to life in the 30’s and 50’s, respectively.  “One significant distinction between the interpretation…involved the seriousness.  Both eras saw the trial as a defeat for fundamentalism, but Allen presents it primarily as a media spectacular (239).”  On the other hand, Hofstader used the trial to address social and intellectual issues of his time, such as McCarthyism.  As a result, the Scopes Trial represented more than struggle between religion and science or evolution versus creation.  It was a tool to promote civil liberties and scorn the fundamentalists.   Books, poems, and plays have told and retold the story of the Scope’s trials- as such, history has become legend.

While the Scopes Trial has been used for various means, the heart of this event is the role of science and intellectual thought in America.  Three main schools of thought regarding creation/evolution are (1) strictly biblical creationist view, (2) a merging of biblical creation with evolution and an aging earth, and (3)rejection of the biblical creation story/agreement with evolution.  As Larson points out, this second group represented a large portion of America in the 1920’s and continues to do so in the present day (he cites that 9 out of 10 American’s believe in God-though this statistic is probably somewhat dated).  What has changed is the role of science, which now cannot (typically) be controlled or suppressed by government.  Yet there will always those in disagreement with new intellectual modes of thought and scientific ideas.  The Scopes Trial, as Larson points out, has and will continue to replay itself in other places.  The question of the proper role of science in society is far from over in the United States.

Paper Topic: Innovation and Intellectual Property

My paper will focus on the development of the patent system in Early America, from the time of the Patent Act in 1790 through the mid-nineteenth century.  While the level of inventive achievement cannot necessarily be measured by the amount of patents filed, it provides a framework to study such activity.  I would like to explore what prompted the need for such property rights and the surrounding economic, geographical, political, and social influences of a government sanctioned Patent Office.  The majority of the work about intellectual property revolves around systems developed in Europe or purely economic analysis of patent statistics.  America’s patent system developed exclusively from the rest of Europe and was markedly different in both functionality and ideology.   Filing a patent was a relatively easy process in the United States and was largely influenced by the political parties and lobbyists.  While some authors have recorded histories of the early Patent Office, they have provided little insight regarding the surrounding environment from which this system arose.  For example, what was the relationship between resources, location, and economy to inventive activities and the need to obtain patents?

Still in the research process, so my ideas might change in a few weeks…

The question of humanity

H.G. Well’s work, The Island of Doctor Moreau, tells the story of a “mad scientist” attempting to create humans, reminiscent of Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein. There were similar premises surrounding these books: the idea of playing God, isolation of the creator, the “monster” out of control, etc. However, I found Well’s writing to be far more resonating and almost eerie (though this can probably be attributed to the modern writing style of Wells). The Island of Doctor Moreau especially expounds upon this idea of playing God, in which Moreau literally becomes a god to these creatures. Wells seems to raise some serious questions about religion, which at times almost seem like ridicule or scorn. He draws such parallels between the creatures/humans unquestionably worshiping the “man with the whip” or God, the recitation of the law (similar to the Bible), and the punishment of disobeying the law which leads to the House of Pain, the equivalent to hell.

Aside from the question of religion, Wells also explores the nature of humanity, and poses the question of what separates men from animals. Writing in the aftermath of Darwin, he affirms that it is merely a “rational side” which distinguishes the man and from the animal. A man in simply an animal with the “animal side” removed. Thus, Moreau creates a human from an animal by shaping it both physically and mentally. Moreau is able to teach the animals by reshaping their brains and the animals that are most perfected are those that are less like an animals (e.g. more rational). The creatures learn how to walk, eat, and talk as a human would until the form ultimately degenerates.

The Island of Doctor Moreau ends on a striking note that links men and animals together: once Moreau has died and the animals have commenced the degeneration process, the protagonist, Prendick, finds himself isolated and in an almost degenerate state as well. He observes “the animal” in people around him and concludes that he too “was not a reasonable creature, but only an animal tormented with some strange disorder in its brain (184).”

Darwin and Religion

Darwin’s ideas caused theologians and scientists alike to rethink their faith and formulate opinions or reconciliations regarding biblical tenants and evolution.  This week’s readings demonstrate several schools of thought on this subject, ranging from the outright rejection of evolution to a merging of science and the Bible.  Samuel Wilberforce ascertained that Darwin’s ideas were in complete disagreement not only with the notion of God but also the nature of man (man’s supremacy over the earth, speech, free will, the indwelling of the Eternal Spirit, etc.).  However, academics such as J.H. Gladstone and St. George Jackson Mivart attempted to blend elements of faith and evolution together.  For example, J.H. Gladstone interpreted the Great Deluge as an event that was possibly confined to a particular area of the earth that destroyed only part of mankind.  Using linguistics, Gladstone argues that figurative language described not only the flood but the six day creation.  Mivart expanded upon these ideas even further and embraced what was known as “theistic evolution.”  Mivart disregards the idea of absolute creation by embracing the idea of figurative language.  For example, language describing a man created from the dust of the earth could be interpreted as man evolving from some pre-existing material.

Gladstone and Mivart successfully unify several basic concepts of geology, evolution, and religion by re-interpreting scriptures.  Essentially, they have adapted their beliefs to new scientific ideas and have re-configured the notion of God (and acts of God) without undermining the essentials of their faith.  However, they follow a Lamarkian (or neo-Lermarkian) idea of progress because they believe that God has allowed evolution for the betterment of the human race.  Also, the idea of God using evolution to create humans gives evolution itself a purpose and this ideology fails to incorporate the natural selection.  Perhaps it is this idea of natural selection that serves as the greatest stumbling block to successfully merging the two together.  Natural selection is random, depends on chance, and is not directional, whereas faith required purpose.

Man Versus Ape

Darwin’s second major work, The Descent of Man, focuses on the origins and evolution of the human races.  Similar to On the Origin of Species, Darwin gradually builds his argument to show how humans descended from apes.  In fact, his first mention of apes occurs in a quote from supporter Huxley: “ the reply is not doubtful for a moment; without question, the mode of origin and the early stages of the development of man are identical with those of the animals immediately below him in the scale: without a doubt in these respects, he is far nearer to apes than après are to the dogs (17).”

While Darwin’s approach in this book seems to be a less on the cautious side, he still he spends the majority of the first few chapters building his case through the physical and mental similarities between humans and animals.  Traits often thought exclusive of humans are found in many animals such as embryonic development, susceptibility to diseases, emotions, language, love, sympathy, conscience, or the perception of beauty can be linked to a variety of animals.  Darwin uses a variety of animals, such as dogs, monkeys, and apes, to make these comparisons.  While I found this information especially interesting, it was somewhat ineffectual in proving his overarching thesis: that humans are descended from apes.  His examples should have focused exclusively on comparisons dealing with apes and other potential links to humans.  However, I understand that Darwin was trying to emphasize a point that humans are not “greater” than other animals and these so-called distinguishing characteristics of humans are perhaps not so distinguishing after all.

Another prominent theme of this work revolved around the psychoanalysis of animals and man.  I found Darwin’s view of sympathy as the driving force to many other mental faculties particularly intriguing.  Accordingly, it is sympathy that develops many of these mental qualities by allowing a species (particularly man) to recall a former emotion (e.g. pain, sadness, hunger) and respond to another in a helpful and constructive way.  While Darwin is not entirely explicit, sympathy might serves as a “check” to promote community and preservation as humans build relationships and protect one another.

Darwin and Art

It is interesting to see Darwin’s wider impact on art in this video:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8101520.stm

OR